Thought this might be interesting. Apparently, this is an attempt by some to "correct" what they see as a liberal bias in Wikipedia. There is a pretty long description in the Ars article along with the accompanying discussion so I won't rehash the whole thing.
However, the articles on evolution and gravity are particularly interesting.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Some have criticized gravity, reminding us that it is only a theory, and that no scientist has ever seen a graviton or a space curve. Furthermore, experiments done by NASA prove that the Moon is receding (moving further away) from the Earth at a rate of 3.8cm per year, directly contradicting the theory that masses attract one another[1]. Indeed, astronomers can observe that all stars in the universe are moving away from one another.
Wow. Just wow.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Explicitly stating you're for a niche won't just rule out people who aren't of that niche; it will drive away people that fit the niche, but want something more general. IMHO. So any sort of from-this-perspective-ipedias are going to have some strange things in them.
Although I didn't expect the thing about the gravity.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
The thing about gravity reminds me of a conversation I had with one girl after a basic astronomy class in college, in which she insisted that nothing we were learning in the class had actually been proven.
"I mean, come on, how do we know what stars are made of? It's not like we've actually been to them. Have you ever been in space? How do we actually know there are other planets?"
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
How do I actually know that Europe exists?
Oh wait, I forgot. I've actually been there.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Thanks for the head's up, Mucus.
I think some of its points might be valid. Some look like they might exchange one form of bias with another.
As the name of the site suggests, the site overall appears that rather than trying to be neutral, it is balancing out the supposed liberal bias of Wikipedia with conservative (pro-American, pro-Christian?) bias, which is a shame.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Well, they are correct about gravity being a theory, at least. We do not know if gravity will continue to function in the future - masses could suddenly stop attracting eachother tomorrow! Fortunately for the existence of complex physical organisms, the theory has held true so far... I have plenty of faith in it.
Having said that, conservapedia sounds pretty wacky to me. If there are errors in a Wikipedia article, can't conservatives just go correct those errors?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think Stephen Colbert said it best: reality has a liberal bias. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Wiki does have a strong bias on some of its entries. I once spent a few hours going through entries and changing "Liberal issues! Yay!" sentences to ones that merely stated the (still usually quite subjective) facts.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:Indeed, astronomers can observe that all stars in the universe are moving away from one another. The considerable disagreement between scientists about the theory of gravity suggests that, like evolution, the theory will eventually be replaced with a model which acknowledges God as the source of all things, the Prime Mover, and the only real fundamental force in the universe.
Umm...how do you use the model for the big bang to disprove gravity and prove God is the Prime Mover?
*emphasis/bold added*
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Here's something interesting:
On this page, they talk about some of the examples of liberal bias in wikipedia.
Their third example is
quote:Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.[1] But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".[2] That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.
That sounds pretty compelling and interesting, doesn't it? Unfortunately for them, they actually linked to their references.
Here's some quotes from the article which backs up their claim that there twice as many self-identifying conservatives than liberals, and that this gap is growing:
quote:Almost no change in proportions who consider themselves conservatives, liberals and moderates
quote:Self-described moderates (40%) continue to outnumber those who consider themselves conservatives (33%) or liberals (18%). These numbers have been remarkably stable over more than 30 years. On a decade-by-decade basis, Conservatives grew modestly from 32% in the 1970s to 36% in the 1980s, and 38% in the 1990s. So far in the 2000s they comprise 34% of adults. Liberals have remained constant at 18% and moderates have held the lead with 40% or 41% in each decade.
While the claims they make are technically correct, they are very misleading. The gap has grown almost none at all, but the numbers do show some growth. Also, the fact that "moderates", outnumber both conservatives and liberals in the poll really casts a lot of doubt as to how useful the numbers of conservatives vs. the number of liberals.
To sum up, their #3 reason why they need to exist seems to be a pretty lame reason.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
Well, to be honest, the welcome on the main page reads (to me) much like a parody. Maybe that's just because I'm one of those dreaded liberals.
Really, complaining that Wikipedia uses BCE and CE instead of BC and AD just seems to me petulant and juvenile. I mean, sheesh, I attended a Christian university and my professors almost unanimously used BCE and CE rather than BC and AD. As far as I can see, these folks aren't really trying to be "objective" or corrective, but rather overcorrective in the direction of their own biases.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
On the plus side, this will hopefully help keep some of the whackjobs in their own little deluded playground, and out of wikipedia.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Conservapedia: ensuring that intellectuals don't take conservatives seriously
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Well, to be honest, the welcome on the main page reads (to me) much like a parody. Maybe that's just because I'm one of those dreaded liberals.
No, that's not it. I'm about as unliberal as they come, and I have serious doubts about this site's authenticity. But then, I have many times wondered the same thing about the lunatic/offensive fringe on both sides here on Hatrack -- they sure seem to be trying their hardest to alienate people from their POV.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: While the claims they make are technically correct, they are very misleading. The gap has grown almost none at all, but the numbers do show some growth. Also, the fact that "moderates", outnumber both conservatives and liberals in the poll really casts a lot of doubt as to how useful the numbers of conservatives vs. the number of liberals.
To sum up, their #3 reason why they need to exist seems to be a pretty lame reason.
There's also the problem that the labels "liberal" and "conservative" are relative, not absolute. As society gets more liberal in general, someone that used to be liberal in the past sounds more conservative now. As an extreme, a person against black slaves might have been liberal back in the Civil War, but is decidedly moderate now. The shift is obviously less in 30 years, but is still present. What we consider a "moderate" feminist now may be regarded as a liberal back in 1970.
I suspect that it may be possible that the increasing numbers of "conservatives" in that poll may be self-identifying based on the fact that they are increasingly more conservative compared to the rest of the world rather than in comparison with the US in the past.
As an interesting aside, the term "conservative" in China would mean a left-wing Communist hardliner, which would pretty much be the opposite of its use in the US.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
I enjoyed this analysis of the seventh example of liberal bias in Wikipedia. (Has become #8 since the article was written.)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
From the comments in that last link:
quote:If I were as paranoid as these guys, I’d assume that Conservapedia was an atheist plot to discredit Christianity.
I guess I really am a conservative, because I think I might actually be that paranoid. Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
From the posts here, it looks like you're not alone. Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
As funny as Conservapedia may be, lately I've been feeling rather depressed that so many conservatives have apparently been working so hard to give themselves a bad name.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I know exactly what you mean. I keep asking myself "Who in their right mind thought this was a good idea?"
Posted by hugh57 (Member # 5527) on :
quote: Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.
And every one of those poll respondents has a different definition of "conservative."
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I'm sure you could say the same thing about moderates or liberals. What's the point?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I keep asking myself "Who in their right mind thought this was a good idea?"
Why the presumption of a "right mind?" Or were you referring to their side of the aisle?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I keep asking myself "Who in their right mind thought this was a good idea?"
I don't know that the idea itself is a bad one. The problem comes in with the people implementing the idea.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Whois says that conservapedia.com is registered to Andrew Schlafly, who is apparently an actual conservative. Unfortunately, it appears that Conservapedia isn't a parody, but rather a project begun by a group of homeschoolers and futhered by Schlafly.
What confuses me is that Conservapedia isn't just conservative -- it's fundamentalist Christian. There are atheists who are conservative, so the site doesn't really have grounds to claim that it represents the overall conservative point of view. Even more ridiculously, the site denies several fundamentals of science. I get that they don't like evolution or the big bang, but I find it completely bizarre that apparently gravity and the theory of relativity are liberal conspiracies. I don't know any conservatives (or home school students) who disbelieve such a wide range of scientific ideas.
You know, when Stephen Colbert said that reality has a well-known liberal bias, I didn't think there would be people out there who actually seem to think that this is true. Conservapedia is an embarrassment to conservatives (and homeschoolers) everywhere.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I keep asking myself "Who in their right mind thought this was a good idea?"
Why the presumption of a "right mind?" Or were you referring to their side of the aisle?
Because if you start with a presumption that people are insane, you don't need to look any further. If you start with the presumption that their actions actually make sense from their POV, then you can always come back and re-evaluate that assumption when you don't find a reason for their actions, but if you start with the assumption that their actions don't make sense, there's never a reason to go back and re-evaluate.
Posted by The Reader (Member # 3636) on :
quote:Orinally posted by Shigosei: You know, when Stephen Colbert said that reality has a well-known liberal bias, I didn't think there would be people out there who actually seem to think that this is true. Conservapedia is an embarrassment to conservatives (and homeschoolers) everywhere.
First of all I don't know what "Reality has a well-known liberal bias" is supposed to mean. We view reality through our own subjective lens of experience and philosophy. Second, TV comedians shouldn't be trusted to provide meaningful influence and insight. Colbert is a satirist. I don't know how others feel, but I think his position limits him to being a beloved clown.
I was homeschooled (I prefer the term home-educated). I would like to think that the scientific and historical material Conservapedia has is rarely used and accepted by homeschoolers, but I know from experience that it isn't. Most of the material offered by homeschooling groups is radical or fundamentalist Christian, such as what is offered by Bob Jones University.
I don't think that fundamentalist Christianity is absolutely wrong, but the education style sure is, specifically when it comes to homeschooling. In my experience, the material wasn't creatively encouraging, was derisive to science, and distorted history so that everything seemed to have been done by and for Christians. I was so disgusted by the blatant disregard for reason that I ended up hating every single moment of my middle and high school education.
However; I support the home education movement. I think that parents have a right to educate their children within an environment they see as safe, but there need to be more options in material. Non-fundamentalist Christian material must exist in this perpetually connected information age, but it is far outnumbered.
As for Conservapedia itself, it just makes me ill. I don't understand why so many of us on the Right have to resort to fear and distortion when it is very possible to use logic and positive persuasion. This is why is why I read National Review, and avoid Rush Limbaugh.
On an aside, I wonder how many non-religious social conservatives there are in America today. I think that it is sad that we find it so hard to accept them. I have problems with believing in religion, but I am still a Righty.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Reader:
quote:Orinally posted by Shigosei: You know, when Stephen Colbert said that reality has a well-known liberal bias, I didn't think there would be people out there who actually seem to think that this is true. Conservapedia is an embarrassment to conservatives (and homeschoolers) everywhere.
First of all I don't know what "Reality has a well-known liberal bias" is supposed to mean. We view reality through our own subjective lens of experience and philosophy. Second, TV comedians shouldn't be trusted to provide meaningful influence and insight. Colbert is a satirist. I don't know how others feel, but I think his position limits him to being a beloved clown.
You completely missed the entire point of the post you are trying to "refute".
He TRIES to be absurd, on purpose.
This is just as absurd, but they don't even realize it.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
Do people actually believe this stuff?
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
Um, since when has conservative meant evangelist fundamentalist???
I am very conservative, but there is no way I believe that malarkey.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: Whois says that conservapedia.com is registered to Andrew Schlafly, who is apparently an actual conservative. Unfortunately, it appears that Conservapedia isn't a parody, but rather a project begun by a group of homeschoolers and futhered by Schlafly.
Hmmm. That's interesting. Phyllis Schlafly (she of the Eagle Forum and anti-ERA activism) has a son named Andrew (according to Wikipedia, which might or might not be accurate, and certainly isn't a disinterested party here). That could possibly explain a lot here, if he is the Andrew Schlafly in question. Then, again, that would be my liberal bias talking.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
If I had money, I'd be willing to bet on it.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
According to the Arstechnica article linked to in the first post of this thread, it is in fact *that* Andrew Schlafly.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Jackpot!
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I wonder if they'll get sued for using Wikipedia's graphics.
Posted by The Reader (Member # 3636) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Originally posted by The Reader:
quote:Orinally posted by Shigosei: You know, when Stephen Colbert said that reality has a well-known liberal bias, I didn't think there would be people out there who actually seem to think that this is true. Conservapedia is an embarrassment to conservatives (and homeschoolers) everywhere.
First of all I don't know what "Reality has a well-known liberal bias" is supposed to mean. We view reality through our own subjective lens of experience and philosophy. Second, TV comedians shouldn't be trusted to provide meaningful influence and insight. Colbert is a satirist. I don't know how others feel, but I think his position limits him to being a beloved clown.
You completely missed the entire point of the post you are trying to "refute".
He TRIES to be absurd, on purpose.
This is just as absurd, but they don't even realize it.
I wasn't trying to refute that post. I should have used the first one to mention that. I took it too seriously though. I would have been better off not using it.
quote: originally posted by RunningBear: Um, since when has conservative meant evangelist fundamentalist???
It doesn't, but that is how we are profusely portrayed throughout popular and political culture. Many of our own do this too. Conservapedia claims to represent *the* conservative point of view, and unabashedly assumes that evangelist fundamentalism is interchangable with it. It's hardly uncommon.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I know exactly what you mean. I keep asking myself "Who in their right mind thought this was a good idea?"
As a liberal, I've been thinking that for years, but about everyone. Welcome to the club Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:Really, complaining that Wikipedia uses BCE and CE instead of BC and AD just seems to me petulant and juvenile. I mean, sheesh, I attended a Christian university and my professors almost unanimously used BCE and CE rather than BC and AD.
Whereas I, a godless agnostic, use BC and AD exclusively and consider "BCE" and "CE" to be fairly absurd. Go figure.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
You're obviously a fundie wackjob in disguise.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by RunningBear: Um, since when has conservative meant evangelist fundamentalist???
I am very conservative, but there is no way I believe that malarkey.
Maybe this is stating the obvious, but it seems to me that evangelist fundamentalists are trying to take over the term "conservative."
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Conservapedia: ensuring that intellectuals don't take conservatives seriously."
Oh! Atomic elbow! Suplex! DDT!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Verily the Younger:
quote:Really, complaining that Wikipedia uses BCE and CE instead of BC and AD just seems to me petulant and juvenile. I mean, sheesh, I attended a Christian university and my professors almost unanimously used BCE and CE rather than BC and AD.
Whereas I, a godless agnostic, use BC and AD exclusively and consider "BCE" and "CE" to be fairly absurd. Go figure.
I tend to agree. I think it's silly to make up new terms when they still follow the same rule of dating. Year Zero still means the same thing, it's still the year considered to be when Christ was born. Calling it something else to appear PC is silly to me, let's either call it what it is, or do away with the system entirely and let this be year 6,007 or whatever it would be now.
I refuse to use BCE and CE in history papers, not because I'm making a religious statement, but because I'm protesting political correctness.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
quote:Originally posted by Verily the Younger:
quote:Really, complaining that Wikipedia uses BCE and CE instead of BC and AD just seems to me petulant and juvenile. I mean, sheesh, I attended a Christian university and my professors almost unanimously used BCE and CE rather than BC and AD.
Whereas I, a godless agnostic, use BC and AD exclusively and consider "BCE" and "CE" to be fairly absurd. Go figure.
I hope you didn't think I meant that I thought using BC and AD was petulant or juvenile. Because I didn't mean that at all. I just meant that complaining because someone uses one over the other or asserting that if one doesn't use BC and AD it shows that they have some sort of atheist agenda (or, conversely, that not using BCE and CE means that they have a conservative religious agenda) shows, oh, a certain lack of maturity.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:I tend to agree. I think it's silly to make up new terms when they still follow the same rule of dating. Year Zero still means the same thing, it's still the year considered to be when Christ was born. Calling it something else to appear PC is silly to me, let's either call it what it is, or do away with the system entirely and let this be year 6,007 or whatever it would be now.
I refuse to use BCE and CE in history papers, not because I'm making a religious statement, but because I'm protesting political correctness.
My issue exactly.
I have no problem with re-working the calendar to take away the Christian "bias". But if we're going to do it, we need to actually do it. All BCE/CE does is pretend we've done it; it's still counting from the same event, and that event is still the (miscalculated) year of the birth of Christ. Pretending this is the "common" era instead of the Christian era is nonsense. What's "common" about it that applied in the year 5 that didn't also apply to the year 5 before it? There is only one thing, and that is the life of Christ. You can change the initials, but it's still the Christian calendar.
And I'm okay with that, too. I have no problem using the Christian calendar. I would have no problem with using a non-Christian calendar. The only calendar I have a problem with is a hypocritical one, which is what BCE/CE is.
quote:I hope you didn't think I meant that I thought using BC and AD was petulant or juvenile. [Eek!] Because I didn't mean that at all. I just meant that complaining because someone uses one over the other or asserting that if one doesn't use BC and AD it shows that they have some sort of atheist agenda (or, conversely, that not using BCE and CE means that they have a conservative religious agenda) shows, oh, a certain lack of maturity.
I didn't think that at all. I just found it . . . amusing? . . . that professors at a genuine Christian university would use the politically-correct "de-Christianized" calendar while I, who have no spiritual reason to care one way or the other if our calendar is based on Jesus of Nazareth, unreservedly use the initials that acknowledge whom our calendar is really based on.
Posted by Me, Myself, and I (Member # 10003) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Some have criticized gravity, reminding us that it is only a theory, and that no scientist has ever seen a graviton or a space curve. Furthermore, experiments done by NASA prove that the Moon is receding (moving further away) from the Earth at a rate of 3.8cm per year, directly contradicting the theory that masses attract one another[1]. Indeed, astronomers can observe that all stars in the universe are moving away from one another.
Wow. Just wow.
Maybe I am just misunderstanding physics, but isn't it possible that gravity is still at work, but that it is also fighting with inertia and momentum? Isn't the moon moving around the earth (albeit at the same speed the earth rotates, if I remember correctly), which implies movement. Thus, perhaps the speed of the moon's momentum is just barely stronger than the pull of gravity, thus making the moon slowly get further from earth. I mean, if Superman threw a baseball into the sky hard enough, it would break away from earth's gravity. That doesn't mean gravity is false, just that the momentum of the ball was greater than the pull of gravity.
Of course, I may be missing something, since my knowledge of physics is rusty, so let me know if I am. Furthermore, I still agree that gravity is a theory, and that we have no proof that it operates as scientists believe. I do think many (not all) scientists need to remind themselves each day that their "knowledge" is not absolute. How many times has science's facts been proven wrong? I believe in scientific research, but let's always remember that we can always be wrong, no matter how much the evidence seems to support current theories.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
It is precisely because of the effects of gravity that the Moon is moving away from the Earth. There is nothing arcane or mysterious about it. We know exactly why it's happening, and it's not that complicated.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Yup. The moon moving away from the earth contradicts the theory of gravity no more than me climbing the stairs does.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Is Andrew related to Phyllis?
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
He's her son.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:albeit at the same speed the earth rotates, if I remember correctly
At the same speed the moon rotates, not the earth.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
Wow. Just... wow. Who knew people could be so profoundly stupid? I mean, on their Homosexuality page, their "sources" are laughably biased and disreputable.
I'm sorry, but linking to an article that takes a small study that has results showing there may not be a genetic component to homosexuality on a site attempting to debunk evolution isn't going to convince me you're right, and that it's all a choice.
I'm half-hoping this is just a big joke.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Verily the Younger:
I have no problem using the Christian calendar. I would have no problem with using a non-Christian calendar. The only calendar I have a problem with is a hypocritical one, which is what BCE/CE is.
It is not at all hypocritical for people of non-Christian religions to object to using "The Year of the Lord" (Anno Domini, or AD) in reference to the birth of Jesus when they do not consider him "the Lord." And I have no problem using a convention that allows people not to say/write something that conflicts with their beliefs while not creating the chaos that attempting to switch to a new system of dating would. I use A.D. in religious settings and C.E. in interfaith or accademic settings. It's a pretty simple way to acknowledge the beliefs of others and certainly no reason to get your knickers in a knot.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Annie: I wonder if they'll get sued for using Wikipedia's graphics.
AFAIK, MediaWiki (the engine that powers Wikipedia) and the art that is associated with it is freely licensed. In fact, I've downloaded it and setup a copy at work to store internal documentation. I do not think that there is any worry in that regard.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I think CE's OK. But referring to it as "Common Era" is silly. 1 AD (or 1 CE) doesn't mark the birth of commonness.
And, on the other side, Christians are happy to refer to January and Thursday, despite not wanting to worship Janus and Thor. Some haven't been: you can see replacements for month names like "twelvemonth" in Emily Dickinson's poetry. However, since the advent of Stargate SG-1, everybody's cool with Thor.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I think CE's OK. But referring to it as "Common Era" is silly. 1 AD (or 1 CE) doesn't mark the birth of commonness.
I think you misunderstand the use of Common in that phrase. It is reference not to the era, but to a commonly accepted zero point.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
Yes, and that "zero point" is the birth of Christ. You can call it "the Year of Our Lord", you can call it the "Common Era", or you can call it "the Age of the Sea Cucumber", but none of that changes the fact that the calendar is based on the supposed birthdate of Jesus Christ.
I wouldn't have a problem using "Common Era" if they found some other event to start it from. But the attempt to be politically correct and say we're using a non-faith-specific calendar which is still based on the birth of Jesus Christ is what I find hypocritical.
They haven't changed anything but the initials; it's as purely superficial an attempt at "fixing" the "problem" of a faith-based calendar as you could possibly ask for. They want to rid the calendar of its religious implications, but they don't want to actually do anything toward that end. So they just say, "Gee, well, the year 1 has nothing to do with Jesus, it's just the start of the Common Era."
And what event marked the start of the "Common Era"? The birth of Jesus. Congratulations, O politically correct ones. You've accomplished exactly nothing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Perhaps you should ask the "politically correct ones" whether they feel better about C.E. than A.D. before concluding that there's no semantic difference, just because you don't perceive one.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
I'm not much interested in how they "feel" about it. I could insist on using "Age of the Sea Cucumber" because I like how it makes me feel all squishy inside, but that doesn't mean you'd take me seriously and accept "ASC" as a viable replacement for "AD".
Or perhaps you, personally, would. I don't know. But the vast majority of people, at least, would not, because they'd recognize it for the nonsense it is.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Why is it nonsense? We've commonly agreed that we're going to start our calendar with 1 A.D. We know that changing the numbers on the calendar is a pain in the butt. We also know that "A.D." is a fairly offensive descriptor.
Heck, we ALSO know that most Christian theologians do not believe that Christ was born in the year claimed.
So by keeping the number and changing the descriptor, we acknowledge that we're sharing a common start point while simultaneously stripping that start point of the declaration. It doesn't make the choice of start point any less offensive to those people who're determined to be offended by Western civilization, but it acknowledges that we as a society have moved past the need to rub Christianity in people's faces -- and perhaps even acknowledges that we may have gotten Christ's birthday wrong. It's an improvement in all categories it impacts.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Yes, and that "zero point" is the birth of Christ.
It's actually not, you know. And I'm not saying that in the "Jesus wasn't born in 0 A.D." sense.
Scales need zero points. There has to be some choice, even one made randomly. A dating system referring to the purported birth of one specific religions deity isn't a particularly good one to use in a secular or multi-faith context. So, a new one was needed. However, it doesn't really make sense to add all the extra work to translate dates from the common format that they were in, so a good zero point would be the same as the previously used one.
It's not starting based from the birth of Christ, but rather based on the zero point of a commonly dating system that is unsuitable for this purpose. It really doesn't matter what the basis for what the referenced zero point was. That doesn't enter into the other system.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Verily: Instead of "The Year of the Lord", I suppose non-Christians could use "The Year of the Supposed Lord of Some But Not All of the Christian Peoples" changing AD to TYSLSBNACP or whatever the acronym is for the Latin equivalent. This of course would make writing dates a bit longer than just C.E.
But seriously, the whole C.E. thing just seems to be a quick fix for people who don't have or recognize "the Lord" but still want to use compatible dates. It doesn't seem to be as big a deal as the Conservapedia or you make it out to be.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You said what I actually meant to say, Squicky, with far more clarity.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
You said what I actually meant to say, Squicky, with far more clarity.
(and then Tom did too!)
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Yup. The moon moving away from the earth contradicts the theory of gravity no more than me climbing the stairs does.
You can climb stairs? I can only go down them. Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:Instead of "The Year of the Lord", I suppose non-Christians could use "The Year of the Supposed Lord of Some But Not All of the Christian Peoples" changing AD to TYSLSBNACP or whatever the acronym is for the Latin equivalent. This of course would make writing dates a bit longer than just C.E.
Or they could just acknowledge that "BC" and "AD" are traditional and stop pretending it's so offensive to use them. As was pointed out earlier, nobody complains that we use "January" and "Wednesday". Nobody says that pagan beliefs are being forced on them because we have months named after Roman gods and days named after Germanic ones.
Of course, to try to remove pagan influences would be religious intolerance, wouldn't it. But to try to remove Christian influences is perfectly fine, because everyone knows Christianity is evil and therefore any references to Jesus are automatically oppressive.
Here's an idea: let's all just stop complaining about it and accept the fact that the calendar we use in the English-speaking world takes names from a variety of religious sources. We have weekdays named after Norse/Anglo-Saxon divinities, months named after Greco-Roman divinities, and years based on a Christian divinity. It's diverse. That's supposed to be a good thing.
Okay, so we don't have any references to Muhammad or Buddha or Amaterasu or Ahura Mazda or Kokopelli or Quetzalcoatl or whatever. Our calendar doesn't represent all the possible religious systems in the world. But it represents the ones that had the most influence in shaping the Anglophonic civilization in its earliest days, so it's full of tradition that goes back to the roots of our civilization. I really don't see what's offensive about that. And I say that as someone who does not worship Janus or Odin or Jesus Christ.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
For starters, "Wednesday" doesn't actually declare any allegiance to any particular god, whereas "A.D." does.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
I disagree.
When I refer to Notre Dame Cathedral, I am not literally saying that I consider the Virgin Mary to be in any way my Lady. Similarly, when I say AD, I am not literally saying that I consider Christ to be my Lord. I am simply acknowledging the traditional convention.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Don't be ridiculous, Tom. I don't think anyone really thinks "I'm pledging allegiance to Jesus when I write 'AD.'" Plus, I doubt you'd be any happier if we used AJC instead.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
golly that's a pretty stupid site.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I don't think anyone really thinks "I'm pledging allegiance to Jesus when I write 'AD.'"
Have you asked? "Year of Our Lord" is pretty unambiguous; if the Jewish calendar didn't already exist, I know a number of Jews who would refuse to use "A.D." for precisely this reason.
While I'm not particularly keen on "AJC," I do think it's better than "AD." Of course, "CE" is better than either.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I don't think anyone really thinks "I'm pledging allegiance to Jesus when I write 'AD.'"
Have you asked?
No, because it's never before crossed my mind. And even now that you've brought it up, it still seems like an unreasonable position to me. First off, calling someone "lord" is not the same as swearing allegiance to that person. A name or title is not an oath, and a feeling of subordination is not allegiance.
Secondly, arguing from etymology is a linguistic fallacy. Just because a word or phrase originally meant one thing doesn't mean that it still does or should mean that thing. If "AD" still actually meant "anno domini" or "year of the lord," they would be easily interchangeable, and this is not the case. I doubt most English speakers would find "2007 year of the lord" or "twenty-first century year of the lord" to be grammatical.
And finally, I don't really buy it when you say that you'd have less of a problem with "AJC"—or at least, I don't think you're being consistent. After all, "Christ" means "annointed one," so using "AJC" would presumably be the same as confessing that Jesus is your savior.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: It is not at all hypocritical for people of non-Christian religions to object to using "The Year of the Lord" (Anno Domini, or AD) in reference to the birth of Jesus when they do not consider him "the Lord." And I have no problem using a convention that allows people not to say/write something that conflicts with their beliefs while not creating the chaos that attempting to switch to a new system of dating would. I use A.D. in religious settings and C.E. in interfaith or accademic settings. It's a pretty simple way to acknowledge the beliefs of others and certainly no reason to get your knickers in a knot.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Have you asked? "Year of Our Lord" is pretty unambiguous; if the Jewish calendar didn't already exist, I know a number of Jews who would refuse to use "A.D." for precisely this reason.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I am not a believer in the ancient greek gods. Can we therefore change all the names of all the planets? To have planets named after some other religion's gods is extremely offensive and seriously damages my religious freedom, after all.
Let's just change everything so that no historical religious references are in any name of anything. That way we can all be happy! Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
[Tresopax, did you just edit that post? *curious]
*mildly
That appears to have been addressed already.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
anno domini != year of our lord
anno domini = in the year of lord
Latin doesn't use articles, although there is a word for "your." It is usually attached in the translation, but it doesn't have to be there. Domini also does not have to refer to Christ - it can also be translated as master or leader.
You can argue with it all you want, but don't add more to than has to be there. And calling it obviously offensive is stretching it quite a bit.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
What planets are named after the Greek Gods?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
All of them, considering the source of the Roman gods.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:That appears to have been addressed already.
Not for those people who believe that writing the name of a god is pledging allegiance to that God. How could such a person send their children to public schools, where they will be forced to write "Mercury" or something like that?
Of course, such a person's position would be totally unreasonable - but no more unreasonable than thinking that writing "A.D." is a pledge to Jesus.
I'd say we should either kowtow to ALL unreasonable people, or none of them and limit our corrections to only reasonable offenses.
quote:[Tresopax, did you just edit that post? *curious]
Ah yes, now I know what you were refering to. I did edit the weekdays bit out because I saw it had already been brought up.
And now I have edited this post as well.... Stop replying before I have time to see if what I am saying makes any sense! Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
katharina, was the "our" context understood in the original Latin use? I seem to recall it having been something which was translated that way because of the meaning in context, and that meaning (which was originally there) was retained.
I think this was a case of words doing more duty in one context, requiring more words to do the same duty in translation. Regardless, it is certainly a part of the standard translation now, isn't it? A professional Latin translator wouldn't appropriately translate "anno domini" as "in the year of leader," as in the original (and current) context, that wouldn't best capture the full meaning in context.
Just like "he's so hot!" (with reference to a movie star) wouldn't be appropriately translated into something like "he has a great deal of kinetic energy generated by the movement of particles at the atomic or molecular level." In one context, that might have been a good translation, but in this context, it doesn't capture the original meaning well at all. In fact, it obscures it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If that's what you want to hear, no wonder you are not listening to what they are actually saying.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Kat, I'd submit that "in the year of the master" isn't much of an improvement. In fact, possibly the only actual interpretation that might remove the offensive nature of the date would be "in the year of someone else's leader," and I think that's a bit of a stretch.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What if you think of it as "the year of the beginner of this era"? It could be that as well.
CT: I don't know much (anyting, really) about midevil Latin, so I can't say where that standard English translation came in. I don't think it really matters, though - if we are messing around with words and meanings and taking things hyperliterally anyway, then A.D. is still okay.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:After all, "Christ" means "annointed one," so using "AJC" would presumably be the same as confessing that Jesus is your savior.
Nah. Not really. He was called Christ. Like I said, there's a difference between a name and a title.
------
quote:What if you think of it as "the year of the beginner of this era"? It could be that as well.
I think the intent of the phrase is obviously not meant to be "the year of the beginner of the era," and it's a bit much to ask people to select such a non-obvious interpretation. By contrast, I think that's precisely what "C.E." actually means in practice.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I'd say we should either kowtow to ALL unreasonable people, or none of them and limit our corrections to only reasonable offenses.
This hinges on a standard definition of "unreasonable," which I think is far from settled. I'm also pretty sure that the Principle of Charity would be helpful in assessing the claims of others, but I understand that has suffered from a dearth of support lately.
quote:And now I have edited this post as well.... Stop replying before I have time to see if what I am saying makes any sense!
I edit mine, too.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Both sides are asking something that is a bit much but still within the bounds of reason.
I'm just saying that if you want to be hyperliteral and careful, you can do that with an alternative translation of A.D. as easily as inventing a new codification and asking everyone else to switch to it.
Calling using A.D. as a system a pledge of allegiance to the Savior is even more of a stretch. Looks like there is going to be a stretch no matter what.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
By the way, while we are on this subject... I should be offended by C.E. too. After all, I believe in a 4 billion year old earth. Hence, the era before year one is way way more "common" than the era after it.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: CT: I don't know much (anyting, really) about midevil Latin, so I can't say where that standard English translation came in. I don't think it really matters, though - if we are messing around with words and meanings and taking things hyperliterally anyway, then A.D. is still okay.
I'm not sure those who prefer CE to AD are objecting on the grounds of hyperliteralness without respect to context.
But this isn't much of a sticking point to me. I use BCE and CE when I need a modifier because they are standard usages in my fields, and I don't have good reason not to. I was just curious about the translation point because I did Latin translation for a good bit of my life (in my academic world, working from original texts -- not as a profession, more as a dilettante).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Calling using A.D. as a system a pledge of allegiance to the Savior is even more of a stretch.
I don't see why; the phrase specifically implies that there is a common "lord" shared by the society in question. And like I said, I know many, many non-Christians -- particularly people of other religions, who have more powerful reasons than atheists do to be bothered by it -- who refuse to use A.D. for that reason.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: By the way, while we are on this subject... I should be offended by C.E. too. After all, I believe in a 4 billion year old earth. Hence, the era before year one is way way more "common" than the era after it.
The dearth continues, alas. *wry look
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I use CE and BCE in academic circles when other people care, and A.D. in all other contexts. I figure it's like a British spelling - depends on who the audience is. Since I don't think using A.D. is a demonstration of faith or belief, I have no particular objections to NOT using A.D.
I wonder if that's partly from being in a minority religion most of my life? I do not expect those around me to support me in my beliefs.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I don't think I expect others to support me in my personal beliefs. I do, however, make a habit of granting small changes to others on the basis of symbolic importance that resonates with them, even if not with me.
Actually, I've often wondered if that's more a dismissive attitude than a respectful one. "Sure, fine, no problem, makes no difference to me" can be quite, hmmmm, "dismissive" is probably the right word. To make less of by making no big deal of.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I wonder if that's partly from being in a minority religion most of my life? I do not expect those around me to support me in my beliefs.
There's a difference between asking someone to support your beliefs and being asked to support a belief you don't share. "A.D." does the latter. I suspect, despite your minority status, that you have only rarely been asked to endorse a religious belief that you don't yourself hold; Mormons still observe most Christian rituals.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't think we are required to make a big deal out of things that other people think are a big deal. It's like...pictures of grandchildren. I am fine with with adorable pictures of grandchildren being strewn about someone's office, but I don't think I'm required to comment on them when I visit them in said office. They love the pictures; I don't care. That's okay.
Tom: You're wrong about that, but I don't feel like arguing it. I know my own experiences.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: I don't think I expect others to support me in my personal beliefs. I do, however, make a habit of granting small changes to others on the basis of symbolic importance that resonates with them, even if not with me.
Actually, I've often wondered if that's more a dismissive attitude than a respectful one. "Sure, fine, no problem, makes no difference to me" can be quite, hmmmm, "dismissive" is probably the right word. To make less of by making no big deal of.
I think it is because you place more importance on the comfort of other people than on holding on to trivial traditions. I think that's lovely. (Does that count as support for your Charitable thingy?)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hey, that's entirely possible. I don't know your experiences. That said, I can't think of a single common American practice that doesn't violate the Word of Wisdom that Mormons don't share -- and share the premise of, as well.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Think harder. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Um....Am I allowed to ask for help? Because I'm really thinking, here, and can't come up with one. I'm assuming it's not something really esoteric, like "Mormons may not register for a watercraft license...?"
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*laugh* Okay. However, I want to say that I really, really, really do not want to get into an argument over my experiences. They and my take on them are not up for debate.
The culture I live is in profound disagreement with the standards of my religion for sexual behavior.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:Nah. Not really. He was called Christ. Like I said, there's a difference between a name and a title.
Right. And "Christ" was a title. It was a Greek word meaning "Anointed One", and was used as a translation of the word "messiah". Jesus of Nazareth is called "Christ" because his followers believe he was the Messiah. It was not his name.
I have to say that I find it too much of a stretch to claim that "Anno Domini", in the context of the Gregorian calendar, could mean anything like "the year of the leader" or "the year of the beginner of this era". First of all, "dominus" means "lord", not "beginner of an era". Secondly, we know where the "Anno Domini" system came from, and we know exactly whom they were referring to and what they meant by it.
That said, I still think that actually being offended by the use of "AD" indicates nothing so much as a determination to be offended by something. Simply saying "AD" is not the same thing as saying "I pledge allegiance to Jesus Christ, my Lord and Savior". I use "AD" all the time, and I do not pledge allegiance to Jesus of Nazareth. He is not my Lord. But simply saying "AD" is not declaring that he is.
Like I said before, I have no qualms about calling Notre Dame Cathedral by its name; "Notre Dame" is French for "Our Lady", and that is a reference to the Virgin Mary. But simply calling that cathedral by its name is not the same thing as pledging allegiance to the Virgin Mary. It's simply using the proper name of the cathedral. Saying "AD" is not the same thing as pledging allegiance to Jesus of Nazareth. It's simply using the traditional name of the era. It's the calendar commonly in use in our society. Your soul is not at stake here.
To put it another way, if your belief system--whether that's a religion or a total lack of religion--is so shaky that it can be threatened by a calendar, then the calendar is not the real issue.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Is it necessary for something to threaten you for you to dislike it?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Verily the Younger: To put it another way, if your belief system--whether that's a religion or a total lack of religion--is so shaky that it can be threatened by a calendar, then the calendar is not the real issue.
... which is why going to the trouble of making a whole new Wikipedia with this issue listed as reason #1, makes Christianity look very shaky indeed.
Or to a lesser extreme, you seem to have a lot more emotionally invested in only using AD while posters such as dkw or CT seem to be quite a bit more flexible. Thus, it would seem that you're more threatened/have a shakier belief system than they do.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I refuse to pass judgements on someone else's religious convictions based on their interest in a internet argument.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Verily the Younger: Yes, and that "zero point" is the birth of Christ. You can call it "the Year of Our Lord", you can call it the "Common Era", or you can call it "the Age of the Sea Cucumber", but none of that changes the fact that the calendar is based on the supposed birthdate of Jesus Christ.
I wouldn't have a problem using "Common Era" if they found some other event to start it from. But the attempt to be politically correct and say we're using a non-faith-specific calendar which is still based on the birth of Jesus Christ is what I find hypocritical.
They haven't changed anything but the initials; it's as purely superficial an attempt at "fixing" the "problem" of a faith-based calendar as you could possibly ask for. They want to rid the calendar of its religious implications, but they don't want to actually do anything toward that end. So they just say, "Gee, well, the year 1 has nothing to do with Jesus, it's just the start of the Common Era."
And what event marked the start of the "Common Era"? The birth of Jesus. Congratulations, O politically correct ones. You've accomplished exactly nothing.
So call it Christian Era, if you like. Regardless. Christian supremicism aside, there's no call for trying to force your religious beliefs down people's throats.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Verily the Younger: To put it another way, if your belief system--whether that's a religion or a total lack of religion--is so shaky that it can be threatened by a calendar, then the calendar is not the real issue.
I love when people come out with this "If your faith is so shaky" nonsense. It's the same thing as saying, "Man, can't you take a joke" when you get called on being rude.
It's no threat. It's distasteful. A decent respect for the fact that Christianity doesn't rule the world requires that there be a way of using the common calendar (there's that word "common" in its correct usage) without having to refer to Christian concepts.
Fact: This year is 2007 according to the common calendar. It doesn't count from anything. Even most Christians don't think it actually counts from the birth of their deity, as has been pointed out in this thread. It's just a number. A convenient one, since it's used commonly. Commonly.
And the point, which goes back to the beginning of this thread, is that the nuts who put together this Conservapedia aren't just conservative - they're Christian supremecists.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:There's a difference between asking someone to support your beliefs and being asked to support a belief you don't share. "A.D." does the latter.
This is basically just false. "A.D." doesn't ask you to do anything. It is just a term signifying a certain part of the calendar. That is what people mean when they write it. If someone chooses to read more into it than that, then it is their own fault if they get offended.
There are many terms that are like that. One could choose to read "Thursday" as a statement that that particular day of the week is the day honoring Thor. But nobody today actually means that when they say "Thursday", so if one gets offended for that reason, it would be one's own fault for deciding to make it mean something that it doesn't in common usage. Or one might travel to "St. Augustine" in Florida and get offended if you don't believe in the Catholic saints - which once again would be one's own fault, because the term there is referring just to a city, not really the saint that originally inspired the saint. (I'd be willing to bet most people who live in St. Augustine, don't know who that person is.) Or if you happen to dislike the French, you might become offended by the term "french fries" even though the normal usage of the term has nothing to do with france. Didn't you think it was silly when those congressmen wanted to rename them "freedom fries"? Renaming "A.D." is pretty much the same sort of thing.
On that note, has anyone gone to T.G.I. Friday's before?
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Yeah, trying ordering a Wednesday special when in there it's always Friday. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Renaming "A.D." is pretty much the same sort of thing.
No, it's not, for the reasons already posted, which you haven't addressed at all.
[ March 07, 2007, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
If we're going to appeal to the popular vote, isn't it clear that there's a large section of the population who do think using AD is honouring the Christian deity? Granted that they don't seem, by and large, to be the actual Christians, nonetheless they certainly exist.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
My guess is that the largest segment of the population never think about what A.D. stands for at all. The BCE/CE proposal has probably done more to bring it to the forefront than anything else could have.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
CE v. AD:
Could care less
Conservapedia:
Still pretty stupid
Posted by Lavalamp (Member # 4337) on :
I don't see any way to register on the site. If you already have a log in ID, you can get on to edit, but it appears impossible to create a new account.
Maybe just temporary?
I saw something I wanted to fix and couldn't do it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Just the one thing?
Posted by rjzeller (Member # 8536) on :
Okay, this strikes me as a particularly stupid idea. Yeah, some of what I see in Wikipedia bothers me, but conservapedia? Good Grief....
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:Or to a lesser extreme, you seem to have a lot more emotionally invested in only using AD while posters such as dkw or CT seem to be quite a bit more flexible. Thus, it would seem that you're more threatened/have a shakier belief system than they do.
quote:So call it Christian Era, if you like. Regardless. Christian supremicism aside, there's no call for trying to force your religious beliefs down people's throats.
Was that directed at me? I'm an agnostic. I have no religious beliefs to push, and I certainly haven't been using this thread to push agnosticism.
Okay, there's a number of people now that claim that the use of "AD" is "forc[ing one's] religious beliefs down people's throats". But no one has really explained how simply saying or writing "AD" is threatening or offensive. I've already demonstrated that it does not constitute a pledge of allegiance to Jesus, and no one has yet attempted to demonstrate that it is. They are declaring that it is, but no evidence is offered.
Furthermore, the issue has been brought up several times now that the names of many days and months are derived from religious sources, and none of the anti-AD people have even tried to address that. Is it pledging allegiance to Odin/Woden to say "Today is Wednesday"? After all, "Wednesday" derives from "Woden's Day", or "Day of Woden". So today is Woden's day. Have I just declared a belief in Woden?
I've been to the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. I just called it "Our Lady". Have I just declared allegiance to the Virgin Mary?
If your answer to those two questions is "yes", then I honestly don't know what else I can say. But if your answer is "no", then it falls on you to demonstrate why saying "AD" is a declaration of allegiance to Jesus, and to explain why it is so for AD and not for Wednesday and Notre Dame.
[ March 07, 2007, 11:58 PM: Message edited by: Verily the Younger ]
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote:Furthermore, the issue has been brought up several times now that the names of many days and months are derived from religious sources, and none of the anti-AD people have even tried to address that. Is it pledging allegiance to Odin/Woden to say "Today is Wednesday"? After all, "Wednesday" derives from "Woden's Day", or "Day of Woden". So today is Woden's day. Have I just declared a belief in Woden?
It seems to me that no one is worried about the name of the months/days because they aren't from a significantly predominant current religion. I have never met anyone who worships Thor, so I don't feel any pressure from references to him.
I think that it's nice that non-Christians have "agreed" to use our calendar and that this has allowed it to transcend being a Christian calendar and become a common calendar. So why not use CE to recognize that it's a common calendar from a common zero-point? Why not give that amount of respect to other religions (or others who don't have religion)?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:It seems to me that no one is worried about the name of the months/days because they aren't from a significantly predominant current religion. I have never met anyone who worships Thor, so I don't feel any pressure from references to him.
So it isn't actually what the year is called so much that non-Christians feel outnumbered and want to kick back against the majority any way they can?
Suddenly I am remarkably less sympathetic. That's ridiculous.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yes, that's it exactly. It's a revenge thing.
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote:So it isn't actually what the year is called so much that non-Christians feel outnumbered and want to kick back against the majority any way they can?
No, that's not what I'm saying... where did I say anything about it being a way to kick back at anybody. I said it was about respecting non-Christian beliefs.
Am I that bad at making my point in a forum (as you can see from my post count I rarely post anything) or are you interpreting my post through your own bias instead of trying to understand/consider what I'm saying? (Yeah, I know it sounds like I'm being a wise-guy and I am a bit but I'm also trying to figure out how you could read my post and then translate it as you did)
The key word in my post was CURRENT.
The point is that AD references (or at least has strong ties/connotations) to a religion that some people have but others don't. Thursday might in theory refer to a religion but it's effectively a "dead" religion that no one really observes right now. Therefore it's easier to "forget" the origin/ties to a religion for Thursday than it is for AD.
If I say I oppose having the 10 commandments on the steps of a court house or that I think "God bless America" should NEVER be part of a political speech am I "kicking back" at Christianity or am I just against pushing my Christian beliefs onto others?
Do I think that we absolutely need to get rid of AD? not really.
Do I like CE better? yeah, because I am all for the separation of church and state and this is similar
Was I trying to make any point about whether CE is better/worse than AD? No. The question was asked why people don't complain about the names of the the weeks/months if they complain about AD and I said that it seems to me that it's because one if related to a current religion and one isn't.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:
quote:Renaming "A.D." is pretty much the same sort of thing.
No, it's not, for the reasons already posted, which you haven't addressed at all.
Yes, it is, for the reasons I posted, which you haven't addressed at all. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How about this, we change to CE because we can and because it's kind . Whether or not people's reasons for being offended make sense to us, it is enough for this small thing that we care that they are offended. We actually put people's comfort ahead of holding onto what we have acknowledged is a meaningless tradition.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What about the other way? For those who don't believe it, consider A.D. to be an amusing historical archaism, like Thursday, and leave it alone for those who attach importance to it because it is kind and charitable not to demand that the world change to fit you.
I don't actually think the above is a good argument or reason, but it isn't a good argument or reason for compelling action either way. Requests are fine, but if the answer to a request is no and the requestor still insists, it wasn't actually a request in the first place.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I don't think it works that way. Either it has a religious meaning, in which case it's not fair to non-Christians to use it in pluralistic settings or it has no real significance, in which case it doesn't hurt anyone not to use it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It could have historical or cultural signifigance. The erasing of the past because it messes up with the vision of the present sounds like the Chinese cultural revolution.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: What about the other way? For those who don't believe it, consider A.D. to be an amusing historical archaism, like Thursday, and leave it alone for those who attach importance to it because it is kind and charitable not to demand that the world change to fit you.
I don't actually think the above is a good argument or reason, but it isn't a good argument or reason for compelling action either way. Requests are fine, but if the answer to a request is no and the requestor still insists, it wasn't actually a request in the first place.
100% agree.
I think there's also the usual caveat that just because someone is offended, that doesn't mean that they need to be offended, that being offended somehow puts the onus of correction on the person who is 'offending'.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Who is erasing anything? I lean toward the term still having significance, which is why I still use it in religious settings and why I think it's the moral thing to do not to use it in interfaith settings.
Of course, I sometimes actually use "the year of the Lord" spelled out in English too. Maybe I'm an anachronism.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think calling it moral or immoral either way is a stretch.
I'm not actually attached deeply to it either way, so I'll use it in places where it is accepted, like a British spelling. I do think the crusade to erase it from all public use is misplaced, at the least.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon:
I think there's also the usual caveat that just because someone is offended, that doesn't mean that they need to be offended, that being offended somehow puts the onus of correction on the person who is 'offending'.
I think that whoever has the most power in a situation (the majority, usually) bears the major responsibility for creating (within reason) an environment in which the people without power can be comfortable.
I think this is especially true when we are talking about Christians being in power.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
Everything offends somebody. As noble as it is to try to regulate one's own speech in order to avoid causing offense, I think that it's really only useful up to a point. Eventually you move into the territory of never actually saying anything meaningful; everything becomes mealy-mouthed as everyone is too afraid to name anything for what it really is. That's the true harm of political correctness.
Would changing AD to CE to placate those who insist on being offended by AD push us to that point? By itself, no. Of course not. But it's another step along the way.
I'm all for getting rid of traditions and usages that are actually harmful. But no one has ever managed to demonstrate that AD is anything of the kind. Therefore I will continue to use it, regardless of the "feelings" of some particular subset of the population who chooses to be offended by it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I think calling it moral or immoral either way is a stretch.
If I understand dkw correctly, she thinks it would be immoral because the term has definite religious meaning to her, but, to use it in interfaith settings, she'd basically have to pretend to treat it as not having a religious meaning.
That does seem like a moral issue to me.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm missing the whole "We're offended by this." push on this thread. I don't think it's appropriate, but I'm not offended. I don't think most other people here are claiming any sort of offense either.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:If I understand dkw correctly, she thinks it would be immoral because the term has definite religious meaning to her, but, to use it in interfaith settings, she'd basically have to pretend to treat it as not having a religious meaning.
I did not get the same meaning. I suppose we can ask her.
quote:I think this is especially true when we are talking about Christians being in power.
It is comments like that this that make me think the whole thing is a grudge issue.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
What meaning did you get then?
---
quote:It is comments like that this that make me think the whole thing is a grudge issue.
Why would that be? boots is a Catholic saying that Christians should take other people's feelings into account, as per the principles of Christianity. How does that sound like a grudge to you?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by just_me: I think that it's nice that non-Christians have "agreed" to use our calendar and that this has allowed it to transcend being a Christian calendar and become a common calendar. So why not use CE to recognize that it's a common calendar from a common zero-point? Why not give that amount of respect to other religions (or others who don't have religion)?
As some additional information of potential interest, not only have some non-Christians "agreed", but non-English users too. For example, the Chinese use this calendar. They don't actually translate the names of days and months, instead they simply number days and months. This may seem a bit confusing at first, but the English names are really quite arbitrary and having them numbered actually makes a few things easier.
I'm not sure what they do about AD/BC but I imagine it is similar to CE.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You're wrong in your interpretation, Squick.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:I think this is especially true when we are talking about Christians being in power.
It is comments like that this that make me think the whole thing is a grudge issue.
Because you think I have a grudge against Christians?
The reason I think it is especially true for Christians, is because, as a Christian, I think we have a duty to be kind, to show some compassion, to not "insist on our own way". I believe it that is supposed to be part of what we profess.
This may also be true for other religions. I won't presume to speak for them, however.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think the passionate people on both sides of this are wanting to make the world work their way. In that case, I wish them well in their efforts, but am not convinced of the nobility of their cause.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:You're wrong in your interpretation, Squick.
I am? Isn't that basically what boots just said?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:I think calling it moral or immoral either way is a stretch.
If I understand dkw correctly, she thinks it would be immoral because the term has definite religious meaning to her, but, to use it in interfaith settings, she'd basically have to pretend to treat it as not having a religious meaning.
That does seem like a moral issue to me.
Almost. Because I think it does have a religous meaning I think that "forcing" (by not accepting an alternative) persons of other religions to use it is a moral issue.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Ok, I haven't read every post. Sorry...
But come on guys, AD and BC? Who cares? They've been used to signify dates for how long? (No, not 2000 years. People didn't start using AD and BC till later.)
Why should we have to change a millenium of tradition that doesn't hurt anyone?
If the translated meaning of A.D. bothers you, just pull out the periods and make it AD. No longer an abbreviation for a phrase you don't like, just a word. "In the year of our lord" is now just an etymology, not its meaning.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:You're wrong in your interpretation, Squick.
I am? Isn't that basically what boots just said?
I thought so.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I think that whoever has the most power in a situation (the majority, usually) bears the major responsibility for creating (within reason) an environment in which the people without power can be comfortable.
I think this is especially true when we are talking about Christians being in power.
*twitch*
I prefer to look at it in terms of necessity. How often is it really, outside of 'faith' settings so to speak, is it really necessary to use anything but the year number? None that I can think of.
I get that even using the year is, in some people's eyes, forcing them to use a Christian dating system, which somehow makes them Christians, which is bad. I don't think there are that many people like this, and frankly I think that thinking is totally illogical, but whatev.
I am all for inclusiveness, but sometimes the solution creates far more problems than the problem itself. Changing the year to something else for the sake of the feelings of these few people would cause a lot of problems and really, practically, solve very few. The year/month/day thing is already understood and practical. It's used by almost everyone and is on most forms of print matter and used by computers.
Trying to measure the solution to a problem in terms of hurt feelings is often a bad idea, imho. Almost certainly, no matter what you do, you're going to have bad feelings if someone doesn't get their way. To say that just because there are fewer people, or people without power, in a situation, and thus their feelings should be honored is really just a shorthand way, to me, of saying that there is no real argument on the issue, because after all, who says that the 'majority' isn't going to get their feelings hurt by having to do something for the minority? It makes no sense to ask the majority to change strictly for the sake of the feelings of the minority,and then turn around and say that the majority's feelings don't matter. Either feelings matter, in which case by most standards the majority 'wins', because the majority has the 'most', or they don't, and the minority's feelings should be ignored.
This isn't to say that feelings aren't important, but I think that there are other considerations that should be used, because in the end, it's impossible to measure who has the most hurt feelings.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Because I think it does have a religous meaning I think that "forcing" (by not accepting an alternative) persons of other religions to use it is a moral issue.
Is changing to the metric system a moral issue? Is NOT changing to the metric system a moral issue?
Thank you, Pixiest. If you don't like the religious meaning, use it the way you use the word Thursday. And as a religious declaration, I think it's a pretty poor one - surely the Lord wants more dedication from us than a minor appendage to a calendar system.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
kat, Could you explain how my interpretation was wrong? I thought it was clearly what she was saying and boots seems to think that it was a pretty good summation? What did you think she was saying and how did you have such confidence as to tell me I was obviously wrong?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It is comments like that this that make me think the whole thing is a grudge issue.
Katie, the only person who made a comment like that is another Christian.
Those of us who're non-Christians have said nothing of the kind.
Here's the major reason I don't mind "Thursday," and do mind "A.D." -- leaving aside the fact that the word "Thursday" has degraded enough that its origins are now only known to trivia hounds:
"Thursday" is the name of the day. There's no alternate way to refer to the day itself. You could say "Day Four" (or "Day Three" in some countries), but there's no standard for it.
In the same way, I'm not offended by "Notre Dame" or "Jesus Christ" because those are essentially names in function -- even if, as has been pointed out, "Christ" started out as a title. We use "Christ" to distinguish between all the other "Jesuses" out there, and refer to "Notre Dame" because that's what it's called.
As has been previously noted, the significant element in any year statement is actually the number. "A.D." is only relevant when it's necessary to establish which side of the divide you're working with; I can speak of "the year 1147" and do so with a great deal more clarity than I can by speaking of "that church in France with all the fancy bits."
More importantly, precisely because "A.D." is merely a descriptor, it can be easily changed without altering the information itself; it's presentation, not data, to use a CSS analogy. Those who still have issues with the data -- like people who use a Jewish or Muslim calendar -- are still going to have to convert, but those who simply object to the presentation and don't mind counting from a point which was once non-arbitrary and now is considered arbitrary will regard this as a "fix."
Unlike changing the name of Notre Dame, changing "A.D." is something that requires no actual data alteration.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Is changing to the metric system a moral issue? Is NOT changing to the metric system a moral issue?
Does the metric system have any religious significance of which I am unaware? If you read my post again you will see that the moral issue I am talking about is freedom of religon.
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: How often is it really, outside of 'faith' settings so to speak, is it really necessary to use anything but the year number? None that I can think of.
Academics. And history, even in non-acadmeic settings.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Dana, do you have an issue with Thursday being called Thor's day? If you use the same rubric, it is also a religious issue.
Because of the history of it, I don't think using A.D. makes someone profess Christianity anymore than eating brie makes someone French.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Is changing to the metric system a moral issue? Is NOT changing to the metric system a moral issue?
Does the metric system have any religious significance of which I am unaware? If you read my post again you will see that the moral issue I am talking about is freedom of religon.
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: How often is it really, outside of 'faith' settings so to speak, is it really necessary to use anything but the year number? None that I can think of.
Academics. And history, even in non-acadmeic settings.
Few history texts, if any, include AD every single time they print the year.
I get that in religious academics, which I think falls under the umbrella term 'faith settings', it might sometimes be necessary, but even then I would guess that the times when it's absolutely necessary to use AD in the text are rather few and far between?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Anthropology, archeaology...
And I disagree about history. When there could be a question (when discussing the Romans for example), it is usually clarified.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Few history texts, if any, include AD every single time they print the year.
(edit: Emphasis added) I'm not sure why that would be relevant. They do still need to distinguish between AD and BC or CE and BCE, right?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
That's true for the BC bit, I suppose. I don't read a lot of classical history, but what little I've read does definitely use some kind of annotation, now that you mention it.
So, I stand corrected on that bit. Thanks.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Huh. Most of my history reading these day is classical (except for Irish History) and most recent books have already adopted BCE/CE without a lot of fuss.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yeah, that's kind of the point.
Also, should I just not expect an answer from you on the "Your interpretation is wrong." thing?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The Roman history I have read uses BCE/CE. I think it is a good idea because it is more accurate - wasn't Christ actually born in 2 or 3 A.D., we think? Especially when you are talking about the years exactly around that time, a year or two off is a big deal.
Added: Hey! Like the metric system! Maybe as an American, I think of the BCE/CE as the scholarly system and A.D. as the cultural system. *muses*
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Plenty of science writing that refers to past events in human history use BCE/CE. I saw it a lot in anthropology papers that I read while taking a course on the history of food.
On the other hand, a lot of works that discuss events that happened before human history tend to use kya or mya (thousands/millions of years ago). Obviously, this wouldn't work for more recent dates, but mya means the same thing whether it's 1950 or 2007. What do you all think about that style of dating?
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Oh, and if we switched to metric, we wouldn't have silly mix-ups like the one that crashed one of the Mars probes. I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's a moral issue, but I think moving in the direction of metric is a good idea.
Plus, it's a pain to do engineering problems that are given in English units. And even worse when it's a mix of English and metric. Think of the poor students! Switch to metric!
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Well, let me say very clearly that I"m not, I wasn't, arguing for using AD, or for people being forced to use it. I was exploring the issue of necessity.
But since you bring it up, for times when it's necessary to use (of which I contend are still basically rare in most people's lives), why not just leave it up to the individual whether they use AD/CE or BC/BCE, then? As long as everyone understands what everyone else is saying, isn't the problem, for the most part, solved, unless someone absolutely wants to make an issue out of it, and in that case, they can plead their case to whomever or whatever they're speaking to.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Herod died in 4BCE. If Herod was still alive when Christ was born, he would have had to be born before that. The census though was listed by Josephus (so much depends on Josephus!) at about 6 CE (though it probably lasted for a while and 6 may be when it was finished). So the dates are a bit fuzzy.
And, just because I am an old aunty, "A.D." is traditionally placed before the year number. In the Year of Our Lord 2007.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Saxon: In that case, I think I'll declare myself firmly AD/BC.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Storm, This entire issue was brought up because the conservapedia people think that using CE/BCE is an assault on their religion or something.
In most secular and mutli-faith contexts that I'm aware of, it has already become the standard to use CE/BCE.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Storm, This entire issue was brought up because the conservapedia people think that using CE/BCE is an assault on their religion or something.
In most secular and mutli-faith contexts that I'm aware of, it has already become the standard to use CE/BCE.
Isn't there also a larger issue of whether or not it is 'proper' to use CE/BCE in multi-faith contexts, and that if you don't, you are committing a breach of etiquette?
That is, if it's absurd that the conservapedia be offended, isn't it absurd for people who prefer CE/BCE to be offended edit: when AD or BC is used?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: so much depends on Josephus
Why Josephus doesn't leave those white chickens alone and come in out of the rain, I'll never know.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Who's offended?
It's not really appropriate, but I'm not exactly incensed about it nor offended by it, except in the lack of respect that often seems to go along with it (witness this thread).
In a multi-faith context, if using A.D. is to you of religious significance, do you think that it is appropriate or polite to insist on using it?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Coming from the perspective of someone who doesn't really care one way or another, I think that it doesn't matter which one is used.
I think that the best form of respect is for people to respect that each person is different, as much as possible, and not to expect the other party to conform to your standard and let them do their own thing.
Using AD is no more rude than using CE. As far as can tell, the lack or presence of one or the other is offensive in equal measure to various people.
So, as a rule, I think people should be able to use AD and CE whenever they please. If someone is really offended at CE or AD, they can, on an individual basis, ask that the other person not to use it.
edited for clarity
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Why is using CE rude?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I would guess for around the same reasons that using AD is offensive to some non-Christians--that is, they are professing something that they don't believe in/being made to conform to a standard they don't agree with.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
From my perspective, the debate isn't so much about what individuals use; go ahead and use what you want to on your wedding invitations. It is more about establishing an academic standard. Like acceptable formats for footnotes, etc. And that ship has pretty much sailed.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
What are you professing by using Common Era?
edit: The only case I see is that they think that people should be using A.D., which seems to me to be saying that they want other people to follow their religious convictions. I don't think it is rude to not accede when someone says "Hey you. You have to follow my religion."
[ March 08, 2007, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Squick, you're trying to censor other people's language - not just your own. No one needs to explain why that is rude.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: What are you professing by using Common Era?
That you don't, uh, love Jesus? That in some way there's something wrong with Christianity?
I think an equivalent question is why people care when someone uses 'AD'? What are they professing by letting other people use AD?
quote:
edit: The only case I see is that they think that people should be using A.D., which seems to me to be saying that they want other peopel to follow their religious convictions. I don't think it is rude to not accede when someone says "Hey you. You have to follow my religion." [/qb]
Yeah, I agree that people shouldn't have to use CE or AD if they don't want to. *shrug*
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
kat, How so? I'm not aware of trying to censor anyone.
Also, you're not going to answer or stand behind your statements, are you? In case you are wondering, the adult thing to do is acknowledge you were wrong and appologize.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Storm, How is using CE saying to anyone that they need to follow someone else's religion?
edit:
quote:That you don't, uh, love Jesus? That in some way there's something wrong with Christianity?
How does this follow? There are plenty of people on this thread who presumably love Jesus and like Christianity that say that they use CE. Are you saying that they actually don't do these things?
[ March 08, 2007, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*explains patiently* In insisting on what form other people should use, you are trying to dictate their speech as well as your own.
As for the other comments, once again, I'm trying to keep you on your toes.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I have never seen anyone say that people shouldn't be free to use AD in their personal writing/speaking. The issue has only come up because the editors of a document have chosen to use CE/BCE, as is their right, and some people are declaring that an attack on Christianity.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Where am I insisting on what form other people should use?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Dana: In this thread? Unless you meant the Conservapedia people.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It isn't any more censoring speech than having an accepted form of footnoting is censoring speech. Or having the post office ask that you use "MO" to abbreviate Missouri instead of "Miss.".
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Storm, How is using CE saying to anyone that they need to follow someone else's religion?
Squicky, I've already answered your question adequately.
To repeat:
quote: I would guess for around the same reasons that using AD is offensive to some non-Christians--that is, they are professing something that they don't believe in/being made to conform to a standard they don't agree with.
I am genuinely confused as to why what I'm saying is an issue.
You are trying to shoehorn a reason for offense as being made to follow someone else's religion. I don't think that's entirely accurate for reasons I've already given.
I respect that that is the standard for you, and that by following that standard, this means that there is no 'real' reason for other people not to use CE in mixed settings, but other people obviously see it differently.
For what it's worth, again, I don't really care. I'd almost certainly use CE if I needed to, because I'm not really Christian.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: I have never seen anyone say that people shouldn't be free to use AD in their personal writing/speaking. The issue has only come up because the editors of a document have chosen to use CE/BCE, as is their right, and some people are declaring that an attack on Christianity.
*nod* It's silly for those people to say that.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Storm, From my edit above:
quote:That you don't, uh, love Jesus? That in some way there's something wrong with Christianity?
How does this follow? There are plenty of people on this thread who presumably love Jesus and like Christianity that say that they use CE. Are you saying that they actually don't do these things?
---
To me, I have no idea why you think the things that you are saying make sense. I'm not saying that as an attack or anything. I jsut can't follow the thread of your thought. You seem to me to be jumping all over the place and the things you say don't make sense to me.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think Storm is making perfect sense and I am puzzled by anyone who can't follow it. Where, exactly, does it lose meaning for you?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Storm, I still don't see how one person using CE is rude.
Is it just because other people want them to use AD instead?
If so, how is that not wanting someone to follow your religion?
I don't see how this would be analogous to promoting a standard that doesn't exclude people, like AD does. In that case, using AD specifically excludes people you don't believe that this is The Year of Our Lord. This is especially evident when the person using it regards it as religiously significant.
How are these situations equivilent?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
kat, So you think that dkw and boots don't love Jesus?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Squicky, I'm really starting to wonder if you have a problem with reading comprehension. Is that you seem so confused by so many posts?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
If this were a romantic comedy you two would be falling into each other's arms in about 40 minutes.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
kat, Storm said that using CE is professing that you don't love Jesus and that there is something wrong with Christianity. dkw and boots both have said they use CE.
edit: And, again, I would ask you to try to keep a civil tone. [/edit]
Noemon, I really dislike it when you and your clique mates do that. I don't think people's bad behavior should be excused or covered for because you like them.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Squick, I'm not excusing anything.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Noemon, I thought it was funny. Horribly inaccurate for the situation and I think romantic comedies should probably answer for a lot of crappy relationships out there, but the remark is really funny.
quote:Storm said that using CE is professing that you don't love Jesus and that there is something wrong with Christianity. dkw and boots both have said they use CE.
I don't think this made your case as well as you think it did.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The way I see it:
AD has a specific historic/religious/traditional value. For some it is a positive value; for others it is a negative value.
CE is value neutral.
It makes sense, to me, that in situations where you don't need the historical/religious/traditional value, one would use the value neutral CE. This seems to have made sense to most of academia as well.
It seems to me that Conservapedia has decided that CE has a negative value because it is "anti-AD".
Don't I get to fall into anybody's arms?
Squicky, you read my posts okay.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't see it the same way. She's behaving poorly and being nasty, again. You're trying to make a joke out of it.
I'm tired of having to put up with your clique's crap.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Perhaps it was an attempt to diffuse the situation so it doesn't get nastier?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I really dislike it when you and your clique mates do that. I don't think people's bad behavior should be excused or covered for because you like them.
What is it that makes you leap to this popularity complex of yours? Is it impossible to imagine that someone might not agree with your assessment of others' behaviors? Or, in this case, decide to make a joke that I'm pretty sure would have been made regardless of the popularity level of those involved.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Tangent:
I was actually thinking about the romantic comedy thing the other day (I, unfortunately, watched One Fine Day, which uses that trope), and I think I know why they do it - it's an easily surmountable obstacle. For there to be tension, there must be an obstacle, but for there to be a happy ending, it can't be a real one, like religion or one doesn't want ot be a stepparent or there's a personality clash. So the "first they hate each other but once they get to know each other they like what they got tok know" is a convenient obstacle that resolves itself as the protagonists spend time together.
<edited - never mind - not getting into it>
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I am going to set myself on fire. Sigh.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
boots, That's part of it. I don't get nasty. It's just kat. But I also don't back down. And then Noemon, or Scott, or Rakeesh, or Dag, or some other member of the clique comes in and attacks me or equates our behavior or lies about me or whatever.
It happens over and over and over and I just can't find any way to stop it. It's not fair and I don't think it's good for the state of discussions on the forum. And I'm just so tired of it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I refuse to participate in this conversation, and I don't appreciate being the subject of it.
Back to calendar eras!
Ethiopia is about six or seven years off because they use a slightly different estimation of the birth of Christ, at least according to Wikipedia.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't see how this would be analogous to promoting a standard that doesn't exclude people, like AD does. In that case, using AD specifically excludes people you don't believe that this is The Year of Our Lord. This is especially evident when the person using it regards it as religiously significant.
Only if the person purportedly excluded uses an interpretation that several others don't use.
Just as some atheists have an interpretation of A.D. that creates a feeling of exclusion (Tom) and some atheists have an interpretation that has nothing to do with religion (Pix), some Christians see making changes to long-accepted conventions solely to exclude references to religion as an attack (apparently those at Conservapedia), some Christians view it as a sign of respect for what A.D. signifies (dkw, if I interpreted her right), and some Christians don't care.
If I'm understanding Storm's point, it's that the negative feelings on both sides - atheists who don't like AD and Christians who don't like CE - arise from interpretations that are not universal. Therefore, in some fashion, they are choosing to have those negative feelings by choosing to use the interpretation that leads to them.
This is the point of equivalence.
Storm, please correct me if I mis-summarized.
Personally, I'm happy using either convention if required by the relevant style guide. In my personal writing, I use A.D. out of habit.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, But Storm has repeatedly said that people's feelings aren't an adequate basis for deciding things like this, so to me, that rules out an equivilence based on just the feelings involved.
edit: I've also addressed this in my posts to him, or at least I think I have, showing why I see a dimension involved that discriminates between the two.
---
It looks like boots last post also addresses this from a somewhat similar perspective.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Dag, But Storm has repeatedly said that people's feelings aren't an adequate basis for deciding things like this, so to me, that rules out an equivilence based on just the feelings involved.
I'm pretty sure that's his point (if not, I can't make heads or tails out of this thread at all) - feelings aren't an adequate basis for reaching such conclusions. Both conclusions are based on feelings. Therefore both conclusions are inadequate.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
As I pointed out in my edit, people have been advancing differences that don't rely on feelings.
Me working on Sunday and someone harrassing me for working on Sunday aren't equivilent even if they both engender the same feelings.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
And I'd like to point out that in order to draw even that equivilence, Storm had to imply that people (including Christians) who use CE are professing that they don't love Jesus.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I don't see it the same way. She's behaving poorly and being nasty, again. You're trying to make a joke out of it.
I'm tired of having to put up with your clique's crap.
I think you're both reading each other as uncharitably as you possibly can. My joke as an attempt to diffuse the situation, which I would characterize as both of you being nasty* to each other.
As for the whole clique thing, I suppose that you could say that I belong to a clique, in that those of us who frequent sakeriver know each other better than we know many of the people over here, and generally consider each other to be friends. It's kind of an open clique, though, since all you need to do to join it is start posting at a forum with open membership.
In any case, you're wrong in thinking that my comment was motivated by my thinking of kat as being part of my group and you being other. I routinely make jokes, and it's not infrequent for me to use humor to diffuse (or attempt to diffuse) a situation in which two people that I like are tearing at each other. In addition, I don't think of you as being part of an out group. Though I've never emailed you and suggested it, I've often thought that it would be a positive thing if you were to become active at sake.
*I see in the preview pane, or whatever you'd call it, that you've said that you don't think that you've been unplesant in this thread. Take a look at your post in which you were responding to Kate Boots when you thought you were responding to kat. Your tone in that post definitely reads as hostile to me, and I don't think it would have been had you not thought you were addressing kat.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm not tearing at her. It kind of bothers me that you think that this is a superficial spat that is all better if you defuse it with a joke (along with the again equating out behavior). Consider if there were another poster who said something like "You're just wrong about this." and then was proven wrong soon after. Would you expect them to at least acknowledge this and quite possibly apologize? I would. In fact, there are plenty of non-kat examples of this from me. I also make it a point, when I say something wrong, to acknowledge it and apologize. I think this is important and helps keep a productive environment for conversation.
In the past, when kat's done this, she deleted the thread. Here, she ignored it and then responded with insults.
---
I looked but I can't find the post that you are referring to. If you could give me more to go on or link it, I can consider what you are saying.
I also did not say I wasn't being unpleasant. I'm aware that it is unpleasant to not back down when people are attacking you or behaving poorly. I said I wasn't being nasty and I really don't think that I was.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Squick, you bully me. You verbally pick on me. You're generally nasty to me. I know you don't think you are, and I've despaired of convincing you of how much it hurts me. Since you think that your behavior is impeccable, I don't see any hope of the situation changing from your end. I would rather be nasty than put upon, and I'll defend myself because I have to.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Storm had to imply that people (including Christians) who use CE are professing that they don't love Jesus.
He had to assert the possibility that some people would interpret it that way. There are question marks after each such assertion, presumably for a reason.
quote:As I pointed out in my edit, people have been advancing differences that don't rely on feelings.
The "profession of another faith" is a feeling. Pix doesn't feel that way. Tom does.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
It's the translation of the words. Linking In the Year of Our Lord to a religious profession isn't based only on feelings.
Someone may feel that it is no longer relevant, but the phrase as a profession does still exist.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:the phrase as a profession does still exist.
As does Woden's day.
I'm not saying Conservapedia is right about this. I'm saying that the entire offense/negative feeling/whatever arises from someone choosing to interpret the use of the non-preferred system in a particular way.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
kat, No, I don't.
This is just like when you said I was sexist, or I was stalking you, or the other passive-aggressive ploys you've tried.
But, just like in those cases, I'll ask you to show where I do this, to back up your accusations.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:As does Woden's day.
No, it doesn't. There are objective differences between a live religion and a dead one.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Squicky, I know you don't. Considering the considerable effort expended by me and others to convince you and your continued insistence that you are not, I have despaired of the effort. If you would like, you could be charitable and believe me. Or you could insist that you are doing nothing wrong, continuing with your present policies, and this terrible situation must continue.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
kat, I wasn't sure either what you meant when you said my comment made you think it was a "grudge issue". I figured it was just a dig, so I let it pass. Maybe some clarification as to what you meant would help.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
KMB: You can fall into my arms *scrunched up smoochie-face*
This is the second time today I've been used as an example. Wheee!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
kmbboots:
It was not a dig. I read your post as saying that Christians are in more need of apologizing for being the majority than other majorities, which is why I read it as a grudge issue. Since you intended to say, rather, that you think that Christianity means being more accomodating than otherwise, it wasn't.
I have to admit I still don't like it. Tapping on someone's religion as a way to persuade someone makes me very uncomfortable. However, I no longer believe you meant it as a grudge against Christians, as if their actions as a majority are inherently worse than any other majority's.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:As does Woden's day.
No, it doesn't. There are objective differences between a live religion and a dead one.
But whether those differences matter is a subject of interpretation. I know Christians who reject "By Jove!" even though that is at least as dead as Norse pantheon worship.
It's clear that some people don't interpret as a profession of faith. Some do. In light of that, I don't understand how you can claim that the final decision about whether AD is appropriate is subjective.
For the record, I know of at least one Thor worshipper, at least serious enough that he forced a prison to accomodate his religious practice. (That's not to dispute your characterization of Norse pantheon worship as dead - I just thought it interesting.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:This is the second time today I've been used as an example. Wheee!
I hope you don't mind - it was based on your participation in this thread, so I thought it OK.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: And I'd like to point out that in order to draw even that equivilence, Storm had to imply that people (including Christians) who use CE are professing that they don't love Jesus.
If you read my posts in their entirety, I think it's clear that I was saying that I *imagine* that that's the way people *might* feel if they use CE, and that is why they might object to using CE.
To me this seems clear, and I have a sneaking suspicion you are trying to straw man me, but I will lay it down to my fault and not expressing myself clearly.
You are ignoring some of what I wrote, I think.
Specifically,
quote: I think an equivalent question is why people care when someone uses 'AD'? What are they professing by letting other people use AD?
I think this speaks to edit: another part of the question of why or why not using both CE and AD in mixed settings is acceptable.
quote: To me, I have no idea why you think the things that you are saying make sense. I'm not saying that as an attack or anything. I jsut can't follow the thread of your thought. You seem to me to be jumping all over the place and the things you say don't make sense to me.
I have no idea what else to say. It seems pretty clear to me.
quote: The way I see it:
AD has a specific historic/religious/traditional value. For some it is a positive value; for others it is a negative value.
CE is value neutral.
It makes sense, to me, that in situations where you don't need the historical/religious/traditional value, one would use the value neutral CE. This seems to have made sense to most of academia as well.
It seems to me that Conservapedia has decided that CE has a negative value because it is "anti-AD".
Don't I get to fall into anybody's arms?
Squicky, you read my posts okay.
The problem is that what CE means *is* subjective. I've tried to illustrate why Christians might interpret it negatively in a couple of my posts.
To me, the issue is whether or not it is acceptable to use AD and CE in mixed settings, or whether CE should be used by everyone. This is what I've been arguing about.
quote: As I pointed out in my edit, people have been advancing differences that don't rely on feelings.
Like what?
quote: Me working on Sunday and someone harrassing me for working on Sunday aren't equivilent even if they both engender the same feelings.
I'm not clear on where you are going with this.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Thanks, kat, for the explaination. For the record, I wasn't trying to "tap" on your religion. Rather I was trying to explain what my religion asks of me. I think it would have been nice to have explained this when I asked earlier, but you are not under any obligation to do so.
Pix, honey, any time! (Do we have swooning emoticon?)
Dag, I can imagine how Christians might feel if expected to say, "By Jove" (in addition to silly). I would not be in favour of asking them to do that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, I can imagine how Christians might feel if expected to say, "By Jove" (in addition to silly). I would not be in favour of asking them to do that.
I'm not in favor of making anyone say A.D.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Storm, I think we maybe really missed each others meanings.
quote:that is why they might object to using CE
I thought we were talking about other people using CE. That's what the conservapedia people were upset about.
quote:I think this speaks to edit: another part of the question of why or why not using both CE and AD in mixed settings is acceptable.
I think there may be some misunderstanding here. I'm not talking about someone using AD in their personal scope, even when that scope is inside an interfaith context, but rather in the group context. That is, let's say there's an interfaith conference that publishes a report. I think it is impolite and inappropriate to use AD for the date.
quote:I've tried to illustrate why Christians might interpret it negatively in a couple of my posts.
Which, as far as I can tell is that they want everyone to use AD. I don't see that as legitimate.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon:
To me, the issue is whether or not it is acceptable to use AD and CE in mixed settings, or whether CE should be used by everyone. This is what I've been arguing about.
I would like to make a distinction between mixed settings where everyone is still writing their own stuff and collaborative works (like an encyclopedia) that have multiple authors. I think it's perfectly reasonable for the editors of a collaborative work to ask the authors to all use a single convention when it comes to labeling dates.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote:I think there may be some misunderstanding here. I'm not talking about someone using AD in their personal scope, even when that scope is inside an interfaith context, but rather in the group context. That is, let's say there's an interfaith conference that publishes a report. I think it is impolite and inappropriate to use AD for the date.
Thanks for the clarification. That definitely changes things.
I think in that case, it would be legitimate for everyone to use CE. (This is to both you and dkw.)
quote:I've tried to illustrate why Christians might interpret it negatively in a couple of my posts.
Which, as far as I can tell is that they want everyone to use AD. I don't see that as legitimate.
I am not arguing that anyone should use AD or CE on an individual basis. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I'm not tearing at her.
It reads like both of you are willfully misinterpreting each other's posts. If someone said that to me when I didn't feel like I'd been doing that, I'd want them to post examples of my doing so. I may go back through and do so later, but right now I'm trying to post a quick something before I leave work.
quote:It kind of bothers me that you think that this is a superficial spat that is all better if you defuse it with a joke (along with the again equating out behavior).
I think that you guys seriously dislike each other. Short of your joining sake, which would force the two of you to actually get to know each other well enough to see that the negative impressions you have of each other aren't the whole story, I don't see much chance of that changing. Given that, I thought I'd throw in a joke to try to diffuse the immediate situation. I didn't think that it was terribly likely to succeed, but hey, you never know.
quote:Consider if there were another poster who said something like "You're just wrong about this." and then was proven wrong soon after. Would you expect them to at least acknowledge this and quite possibly apologize? I would. In fact, there are plenty of non-kat examples of this from me. I also make it a point, when I say something wrong, to acknowledge it and apologize.
Of course I would. And kat's not doing so in this situation is something that I viewed as poor form on her part. You seem to think that I don't see any problem with the way kat is conducting herself in this thread, but you're wrong; I just don't have the impression that you're conducting yourself much better (note that I'm not saying that you're both behaving in exactly the same ways--you both have different styles of fighting dirty). It's possible that I'm wrong, and that my impression is colored by past interactions between the two of you. When I have more time I'll reread this thread and see if I can point out any examples to you.
quote:I looked but I can't find the post that you are referring to. If you could give me more to go on or link it, I can consider what you are saying.
Kate's post is the second from the top on the third page. Yours is directly below it. You aren't being a horrible jackass in your post, you do come off as somewhat hostile, and the second line seems to make it clear that you're confusing the two posters.
quote:I also did not say I wasn't being unpleasant. I'm aware that it is unpleasant to not back down when people are attacking you or behaving poorly. I said I wasn't being nasty and I really don't think that I was. [/QB]
I wasn't referring to your not backing down. Although I really don't look forward to it, I will make a point of going through this thread and seeing what examples I can turn up of your behaving poorly. It'll be later, though, and may even be tomorrow. And I should probably respond to Stormy before I do this, as I've been promising that I'd do so for days now.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I freely admit that it was rude to not respond to Squicky's request for an explanation. That was a deliberate choice as being the best for the situation as it is. I wasn't talking to him in the first place, didn't want to start, and I shouldn't have aknowledged his post in the first place. Once I did, the best I could was try to not engage further at all.
Man, I did try. Did you see how many times he had to post begging a response? I am trying to avoid the inevitable blowouts.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Kate's post is the second from the top on the third page.
Fourth page, not third.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
FWIW, I largely support the Squickster in this tiff. kat, if you didn't have largely unexplainable blowups with so many people here for the last 5 years or so, I'd take your side. Between your inexplicable behavior toward me in the past, and your weird oversensitiveness....Squick once posted this to you:
"Princess, you're going to have to deal with the fact that you don't actually give orders that people have to follow around here."
I sort of agree. I myself wouldn't have dignified the post he was responding to with a reply, but that's not my call.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I wasn't referring to your not backing down. Although I really don't look forward to it, I will make a point of going through this thread and seeing what examples I can turn up of your behaving poorly. It'll be later, though, and may even be tomorrow. And I should probably respond to Stormy before I do this, as I've been promising that I'd do so for days now.
Don't worry about it. Really. If it's something you want to do, do it. If not and you have better things to do, that's fine. I may very well respond by just saying 'Neat!'
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Steven, your opinion is your own and you are welcome to it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I sort of agree. I myself wouldn't have dignified the post he was responding to with a reply, but that's not my call.
Somehow, I doubt your statement when, in fact, you are commenting on it right here. Way after the fact, you're commenting on it.
----------
OK, so, clique-members. Who's in charge? I vote for anybody-but-Scott.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I don't have any problem with people using AD and BC on a personal level. But if it's something for general contributions, like a journal, it should have BCE/CE as a standard. Otherwise, it excludes people.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
It would never have occurred to me to consider insisting that someone else use CE instead of AD privately. That seems bizarre. I assumed we were speaking of formal public joint usage.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
I don't understand the whole problem with using CE instead of AD or backwards. What, to be politically correct? Give me a break, we're just confusing ourselves because after all every single textbook at every single public school I ever attended, used A.D. and you want to know something funny about that? I always thought it meant After Dead.
So what if our dating system has some religious background? It's not like everything in our society isn't somehow related to religion in some way.
The A and the D aren't in your face with a Bible saying stuff like, "You believe in the Lord, right? You believe? Oh! Hallelujah! Alabado sea el Senor!"
In fact, I didn't even know until now that there was such a thing as CE and BCE, and now that I think of it, they're still pointless because they all start at the same time which like it or not is linked to the Christian belief in Christ. Deal with it.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
My $.02
I've heard enough arguments from the "This is a Christian nation" ilk to the effect that the Framers of the Constitution used "in the year of our lord" specifically to establish a Christian nation, so I know that there are those out there that use A.D. to rub non-Christians' noses in it.
That's not to say that the innocent use of a dating convention is intentionally offensive, especially within a religious context, as Dana notes. I don't have a problem with that. If you want to use A.D. that's fine with me.
The thing that I find offensive is the fundy claim that using C.E. is insulting to Christianity, when it's used by people for whom Anno Domini is simply meaningless. It's a great calendar. We use it because it works, regardless of where the zero point was set.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Don't worry about it. Really. If it's something you want to do, do it. If not and you have better things to do, that's fine. I may very well respond by just saying 'Neat!'
Cool. In that case, I'll probably post something eventually, or maybe email you (assuming your emailable through the forum; haven't checked). On the plus side, your asking me to go into more detail has spurred me to think more about this than I have in a long time, and to go on a Ken Wilber reading binge.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Somehow, I doubt your statement when, in fact, you are commenting on it right here. Way after the fact, you're commenting on it." No, my usual response to people acting afraid of me is to not interact directly with them.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Don't worry about it. Really. If it's something you want to do, do it. If not and you have better things to do, that's fine. I may very well respond by just saying 'Neat!'
Cool. In that case, I'll probably post something eventually, or maybe email you (assuming your emailable through the forum; haven't checked). On the plus side, your asking me to go into more detail has spurred me to think more about this than I have in a long time, and to go on a Ken Wilber reading binge.
Just post something here. I'm sure everyone would like to read it. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:No, my usual response to people acting afraid of me is to not interact directly with them.
This is relevant to this conversation how, exactly?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
See, "deal with it" doesn't strike me as a particularly "Christian" response to someone who is being excluded.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:I always thought it meant After Dead.
Me too. Up until about three years ago. I guess that's a testament to how much it doesn't matter to agnostics like me.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: See, "deal with it" doesn't strike me as a particularly "Christian" response to someone who is being excluded.
For one thing, I support removing "Under God" from the pledge of allegiance. I'm a very devout Christian. Oh yes, *goes back to her 'Hail Marys'*
Ahem, ahem. What I meant to say here is that even if it was Muslim, Buddhist, Taoist, or of Scientology, it wouldn't make a single difference.
Heck, most of the words in Spanish that start with Al- are from the word Allah. After all, the Moors were in Spain from 711 A.D. (in your face) to 1492 when they were kicked out along with the Jews. So what? I'm going to invent a new prefix just because AL isn't Christian enough? To hell with that, I just stick with what I have and deal with it. It's not beating my face with a Koran...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So do I.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"This is relevant to this conversation how, exactly?"--take it easy, guy. It isn't.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: "This is relevant to this conversation how, exactly?"--take it easy, guy. It isn't.
Because, it relates to the fact that people want to change something just because it's origins are not of their own belief/non-belief systems when it's not something that really makes that big of a difference and changing it would just confuse everyone for sake of political correctness.
EDIT: If those Spaniards and their inquisition could bear the AL in their words, why the hell can't we just deal with the AD?
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
A bit late, but here are my 2 cents.
First off, I was heartily amused by the website's explicit self-profession of bias on its front page. Well, now Colbert has two sources for his information.
As for AD vs CE, the suggestion that the use of CE is "anti-Christian" is worth another laugh. And as has been pointed out, Jesus was most likely not born in 0 BCE/BC/AD/CE, which makes the indignation towards the use of a different acronym seem rather petty.
I use CE, but I don't consider it an important detail. I'd still be using a calendar of Christian origin. I'm okay with that; its become so standard, and in many cases detached from any religious origin. I treat 0 CE as a purely arbitrary zero point.
On the other hand, if there was a movement to change the calendar zero point to a different date celebrating something more inclusive of humanity and not dependant on a particular creed, I might support it. But I doubt there will be much interest in a change or any consensus on an appropriate date during my lifetime or that of my great great [...] great grandkids.
If it were up to me, I'd pick August 9, 1945. Then again, maybe that's my Pacific bias speaking. And we might have to change the calendar again if another bomb was dropped. Obviously the switch-over would come at a spectacularly inconvenient time.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
My favorite line is: Pirate Brotherhood of Treehouse Hill, There are lots and LOTS of idiots to kill.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Obviously katharina can't be in MY club-- see the poem.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk:
quote:I always thought it meant After Dead.
Me too. Up until about three years ago. I guess that's a testament to how much it doesn't matter to agnostics like me.
Out of curiosity, how did you two think the years during which Jesus was alive were referenced?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Altariel...total side point, but I thought "al" was a contraction of "a el"?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I think she's not referring to the word "al" which is a contraction, but to the prefix "al-" as in "algebra."
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I'm slow so I'm going back a couple pages to address something...
quote:How about this, we change to CE because we can and because it's kind/
I don't think it is kind to give people the idea that they have right to expect others to change for them whenever they get offended by something. It would be much more kind to get them to understand that they are much better served if they only get offended by things that merit it.
There is a larger problem here. In truth, the difference between C.E. and A.D. is mostly irrelevant. But the larger problem is the misbelief that one can be offended by whatever one wants and that the offender has a duty to change their ways to accomodate you. This is a problematic attitude, not just because it makes other people mad when you expect them to change just because you personally find something they are doing offensive, but also because it makes yourself needlessly unhappy. There is no legitimate reason why anyone should be bothered or made unhappy by the usage of something like A.D. or C.E. There are plenty of valid reasons people become unhappy in life; there is no good reason to add unimportant issues like these to the list. It is better to be happy. Yet the "I have a right to be offended" attitude fosters almost exclusively anger and unhappiness.
Thus the truly kind thing to do would be to make it clear to people that they do NOT have a right to be offended - that they do NOT have a right to expect people to change if they get offended by something - and that they should NOT be offended by things that aren't actually harmful in any significant way. And the way to do that, in this case, is to let people use whichever of the two abbreviations they want to mark A.D. or C.E., to not make anyone change one way or another, and to recognize that it really doesn't make much difference whatsoever. Perhaps this is something that needs to be taught to children, that adults are no longer capable of learning - but I'm inclined to believe they are capable, if we as a society hold people to that standard.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:Originally posted by vonk:
quote:I always thought it meant After Dead.
Me too. Up until about three years ago. I guess that's a testament to how much it doesn't matter to agnostics like me.
Out of curiosity, how did you two think the years during which Jesus was alive were referenced?
Yeah, I used to think about that, but then I'd remember that I don't care that much and I know what year it is, so :shrug:
Edit: or you could just substitute that with something snarky refering to how I don't necessarily believe the Jesus was ever alive, so the question didn't seem important.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Verily the Younger: Eventually you move into the territory of never actually saying anything meaningful; everything becomes mealy-mouthed as everyone is too afraid to name anything for what it really is. That's the true harm of political correctness.
Would changing AD to CE to placate those who insist on being offended by AD push us to that point? By itself, no. Of course not. But it's another step along the way.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I don't think it is kind to give people the idea that they have right to expect others to change for them whenever they get offended by something. ... Yet the "I have a right to be offended" attitude fosters almost exclusively anger and unhappiness.
I don't see people who petition for BCE/CE (in formal public joint usage) as people who "insist on being offended," or who are fixated on having "a right to be offended." Sure, there may be some, but the vast majority of people I see who assert the rightness of this change look like me, and kmboots, and dkw, and so forth.
We aren't foaming at the mouth. We aren't slavishly wedded to being offended. We just, you know, think it's a good idea that makes good sense.
I am starting to suspect that vigorous resistance to the change may be driven in good part by fear of a horde of people who aren't actually there.
[ March 09, 2007, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Why would it be a good idea, except to avoid offending people? I don't really see any other benefit to changing the tradition.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
You know as a social conservative, and a fairly religiously orthodox Mormon, who believes in the miracle of Jesus' death and resurrection, and who ALSO believes in the eventual recognition by all people that He is who He said He is...
I'm just not all that concerned about changing AD to CE.
Meh. It's a non-issue in the big scheme of things.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Most people I know, religious or otherwise, wouldn't be offended if someone used CE.....confused, perhaps, but not offended.
I find the claim that CE is anti-Christian absurd, although if people tried to force someone to give up AD in common usage then perhaps there would be some merit in the argument.
As far as the rest of it......
I like reading Squick's post most of the time, even though we don't always agree. I like kat because she makes me laugh, and she has a novel way at looking at things that we don't always see represented otherwise.
But I don't understand why you both don't see the others point here. Perhaps I am missing too much of the back story, but after reading this thread for the first time in a week....last time I checked it was only 2 pages long, I think...I got what the arguments were.
Part of it seems to be that we were discussing apples and oranges. Some of us were talking about private discussions, and some of us were discussing research papers and public discourse.
I think that forcing anyone to use one or the other is not a good thing. For every person who sees CE as an attack on their faith there is another who sees the use of it as defending their right to not be Christian.
They can BOTH be right. Ridiculous, but but correct.....because we are talking about beliefs and faith, not just proper language usage.
If conservative Christians open the can of worms on this one...and they did....then they are the ones placing/dictating religious value inherent in the usage. If others disagree with their definition....that to use AD is more "godly".... then they have no one to blame for the backlash against the BC/AD usage, because they are the ones making it more than a convenient historical reference point.
But on the flip side.......forcing someone who does believe that to use CE in normal conversation is not good either. They may feel that they are caving in to anti-religious sentiment, and being forced to deny their own religious views.
Perhaps a good compromise, at least in a paper or things like that, should be for the person writing it to use whichever convention their beliefs dictates....but have then also write the other convention in a footnote, or noted in some other way.
That way their religious views are protected, and there is less of a chance of being misunderstood.
If that was acceptable then no one would be able to claim that either was an attack on their views.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:There is no legitimate reason why anyone should be bothered or made unhappy by the usage of something like A.D. or C.E.
In your opinion, of course.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Of course! (But I am right. )
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Why would it be a good idea, except to avoid offending people? I don't really see any other benefit to changing the tradition.
Hmmm. So you see it purely as a matter of being "offended."
How would you define that term? What does it mean to you? (It may connote or denote something different to you than I understand it to do.)
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Offended is when one is bothered, upset, or angry about something someone else did. It may or may not correspond to some actual wrong committed.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Offended is when one is bothered, upset, or angry about something someone else did. It may or may not correspond to some actual wrong committed.
So the term has a connotation of being emotionally distressed? (It does to me, just checking to see if it does to you.)
I'd contrast "being offended" with, say, "thinking X needs to be changed." The former seems to carry a connotation of being emotionally charged ("bothered, upset, or angry"), while the latter could be describing a state that is emotionally neutral.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Noemon, I was wondering if you ever got around to looking over the thread to see where I was behaving poorly.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:So the term has a connotation of being emotionally distressed?
Yes.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Ah. That is probably where the disagreement arises. I (and others, I take it) can assess some things as being better done another way without necessarily being emotionally distressed about it.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I haven't, Squick. I've thought about the fact that I need to do so a fair amount, but I haven't actually dug in and done it. Honestly it isn't something I'm particularly looking forward to doing, but since I said I would I will.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
If it helps, if you can show to me that I was behaving poorly and fighting dirty, something I'm pretty darn sure I wasn't doing, it will have a great deal more effect on my future behavior than either making a joke or accusing me of it without backing it up.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Well, what did you think of the example I did provide, in which you were mistakenly thinking that a post made by kmboots had been made by kat, and responded somewhat snidely? As I said in my post identifying where the posts in question were (4th page, 2nd and 3rd posts on the page), your post wasn't horribly rude, but I'm reasonably certain that you wouldn't have taken that tone with anyone other than kat (or with many people other than kat, anyway).
For the record, my joke wasn't intended to change your future behavior or kat's, either one. It was intended to diffuse an immediate situation, in which I perceived that two people I held in positive regard were, yet again, at each other's throats.
As for the "accusing me...without backing it up" bit, I'll get to it. I'm not looking forward to wading through that exchange a second time, but I'll do so.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:your post wasn't horribly rude, but I'm reasonably certain that you wouldn't have taken that tone with anyone other than kat
1) You yourself admitted that I wasn't particularly rude. And it wasn't nasty. I don't see how that was me "fighting dirty" as you accused me of.
2) I thought I already addressed this particular post but I can't find it. You are wrong about my tone. I think you may be reading it as more hostile than it is because you expect me to be.
I'm kind of puzzled by the sake thing. I've gotten from a couple of people in regards to this. I'm not talking about sakeriver. This has been going on for longer than sake's been around, I think. It's more people I'd term jatraqueros.
Also, you may be missing my point. I don't particularly want to join sakeriver. I'm also not looking to get people to like me or be popular. I just wish that I could be treated fairly, to not have people think that attacking me with baseless accusations and lies is okay, even if I'm not popular. I've long since given up hope that the jatraguero cliqe will actually acknowledge or try ameilorate the poor behavior of some of the people in it. I certainly don't want people excusing my bad behavior like a kat or a Leto. It's just when people accuse me of bad behavior, I'd like for them to at least try to show me where I behaved poorly and to possibly respect my chance to defend myself.
edit: For what it's worth, the last 3 times that Rakeesh or Scott did this, they just insulted me made accusations and then responded to my request for where I did these things with more insults and then left, so I do appreciate that you are doing more than that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Also, you may be missing my point. I don't particularly want to join sakeriver. I'm also not looking to get people to like me or be popular. I just wish that I could be treated fairly, to not have people think that attacking me with baseless accusations and lies is okay, even if I'm not popular. I've long since given up hope that the jatraguero cliqe will actually acknowledge or try ameilorate the poor behavior of some of the people in it.
Your point is based on a faulty view of what happens, Squick. I've pointed out numerous times your repeated assertions that I've said something I haven't said. In a very old thread that recently got linked, you called someone childish. You did it again today - in fact, I think you were nasty to Kat today. You disagree, and I'm not going to debate you about it, but the point is that your actions are not perceived as you think they should be.
Beyond that, your continual assertion that people's opinions and posts about how people behave is motivated by cliquishness is damn petty and insulting. It's also extremely untrue. Whatever the merits of others' opinions of your behavior here, THIS particular behavior is uncalled for.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
What is the problem with calling someone's behavior childish when their behavior is childish?
Dag, The attacks, lies, and unfounded accusations I get come from the same group of people who are in a clique with kat. I see cliquey behavior from them outside of this parituclar case (heck, the word jatraquero was all about the clique). These people have, in past, defended people (Leto springs to mind) because they liked them. kat has behaved poorly over the course of years here without them taking any part besides attacking the people who she fights with. From my perspective, their behavior isn't motivated by fairness or a desire for what is good for Hatrack. So, you know, I don't think I'm going to replace my judgment with yours just yet.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It wasn't childish.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I've long since given up hope that the jatraguero cliqe will actually acknowledge or try ameilorate the poor behavior of some of the people in it.
Squicky, as far as I can tell, you're in the Jatraquero clique. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:It wasn't childish.
From your perspective. From mine it very clearly was.
I'll ask again, is it wrong to call someone's behavior childish when their behavior is childish?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Beyond that, your continual assertion that people's opinions and posts about how people behave is motivated by cliquishness is damn petty and insulting. It's also extremely untrue. Whatever the merits of others' opinions of your behavior here, THIS particular behavior is uncalled for.
Not that I want to get in the middle of this, but for the sake of honesty, I have to agree that the Sake River contingent is a definite clique. People from Sake tend to band together and stick up for each other. They tend to try and see things from each others' viewpoint and, thus, if one sees someone as bad or good, there is a tendency for everyone to treat that person that way, too. This is all a natural outgrowth of being friends. Nothing strange or abnormal about it.
I don't know whether Squicky has been unfairly treated. Can't speak to that. But whether or not there are cliques on Hatrack? Yeah. Most definitely.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:It wasn't childish.
From your perspective. From mine it very clearly was.
I'll ask again, is it wrong to call someone's behavior childish when their behavior is childish?
Sometimes. But I don't need to evaluate that question this time, because it wasn't childish. Therefore your statement was nasty. If your going to throw around insults like that, they're going to be judged. And if the nastiness depends in part on the truthfulness of the underlying claim, those who disagree with your evaluation will consider you to be nasty.
My perspective is the one I am using to evaluate both questions here. You have asserted a motivation - cliquishness - for treating you unfairly and not respecting your "chance to defend" yourself. This accusation doesn't rely on your perspective, because it's not your motives being questioned. It relies on the perspective of those responding to you.
quote:The attacks, lies, and unfounded accusations I get come from the same group of people who are in a clique with kat. I see cliquey behavior from them outside of this parituclar case (heck, the word jatraquero was all about the clique). These people have, in past, defended people (Leto springs to mind) because they liked them. kat has behaved poorly over the course of years here without them taking any part besides attacking the people who she fights with. From my perspective, their behavior isn't motivated by fairness or a desire for what is good for Hatrack. So, you know, I don't think I'm going to replace my judgment with yours just yet.
Then you will be telling falsehoods about others. You won't be lying, assuming you believe this, but it doesn't make such statements truthful.
Further, I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around this "clique" that leaps to both Leto and Kat's defense.
quote: don't know whether Squicky has been unfairly treated. Can't speak to that. But whether or not there are cliques on Hatrack? Yeah. Most definitely.
It is true that there are cliques - many of them. Sake probably loosely defines one.
But the question is not "are their cliques?" but "is the reason Squicky is unfairly treated the existence of such a clique?"
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:It wasn't childish.
I'll ask again, is it wrong to call someone's behavior childish when their behavior is childish?
In my opinion the important question in this context is not whether it is wrong but whether it is productive.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Productive-wise, I think it was pretty much neutral. I'd just spent a thread providing detailed responses and asking for explanation when I was told that these things were wrong, to be responded with "Nu-huh." over and over. It wasn't productive and it wasn't unproductive. It was, however, fair.
[ March 20, 2007, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I still say my version of that nicely encapsulated the entire SquicKat Experience (tm). Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Tom, You kind of missed the part where I repeatedly said "Could you explain?" to be met with "nu-huh", which, to me, was sort of important.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: But the question is not "are their cliques?" but "is the reason Squicky is unfairly treated the existence of such a clique?"
Dagonee,
I guess what I was trying to say with my last post is that it's entirely possible, but I haven't been paying attention to the whole Kat/Squicky thing that much to say for sure.
For what it's worth, calling someone rude, childish, whatever, seems to be, like,the national pasttime of many people on Hatrack. Sometimes you just have to say, you think I'm rude? Sorry, but I don't see it that way, and motor on. Arguing with someone over something like that has no winners, and I think the best course of action is just to agree to disagree and try not to get on the other person's tits in the future.
So, there you go. Problem solved, let's call it a day.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Squick, I was not being childish. I was engaging you on a limited basis, which is my choice. I can understand that that would be frustrating, but I believed that I would not be treated with respect, so I decided to not extend myself. There's nothing remotely childish about that.
If you wish to have my trust enough to get me to engage you in a conversation, you will have to make me believe that you respect me.
You are wrong, both in your assessment and in your reaction to it.
[ March 21, 2007, 12:21 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Ah. That is probably where the disagreement arises. I (and others, I take it) can assess some things as being better done another way without necessarily being emotionally distressed about it.
No, that doesn't explain the disagreement. The question still remains: What good reason is there to "assess" that it is better to write CE than AD?
The only such reason I can think of is to avoid offending people - but that is only a valid reason if you think it is a good idea to eliminate traditions that offend people even when there is no good reason for their offense. I'd say it is harmful to appease people who get offended by things for no good reason. Thus that is NOT a good reason to change AD to CE.
And if that is not the reason, what is the reason? If there is no reason to write CE instead of AD, I think you'll agree that we should assess that it is better to retain the tradition (since tradition inherently has some degree of value, just for the sake of being tradition) rather than change for no good reason whatsoever. This is especially true if the change will actually do harm, by encouraging people to continue to get offended by things for no good reason and expect society to appease them accordingly.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: The question still remains: What good reason is there to "assess" that it is better to write CE than AD?
*stares
Tresopax, have you not heard of objective principles? Such as fairness, regardless of whether people are upset or not? I mean, I understand that [someone] might live [his or her] life guided by emotion without respect to reason, but surely you understand that not all decisions for other people are ones based solely on emotion, yes?
quote:If there is no reason to write CE instead of AD, I think you'll agree that we should assess that it is better to retain the tradition (since tradition inherently has some degree of value, just for the sake of being tradition) rather than change for no good reason whatsoever.
Well, no. Not necessarily. I'd say it is harmful to appease people who get offended by any and every change, clinging to tradition without stopping to assess whether there are good reasons to change it. Sometimes tradition is good, but clinging to tradition unreservedly and without examination is a harmful habit, and one it is good to get periodically shaken out of. This is why, for example, people speak of "being in a rut" in a way that is not bragging.
By the way, that is an argument specific to your assertion that "tradition"="always good," not as an argument for any particular change, such as civil unions. But I would place civil unions under your caveat of "for good reason," anyway [and I think a lot of things would fit there, without emotion as a driving force -- the emphasis being on "reason"].
quote:This is especially true if the change will actually do harm, by encouraging people to continue to get offended by things for no good reason and expect society to appease them accordingly.
You seem to live in a world of overwhelming emotion, populated by persons with unstable emotions who are emboldened in their emotionality by others who don't effectively smash them down with their emotions. Dude, that just isn't the world I live in. Where I live, sometimes people* just want something changed for objective reasons of fairness, and when it's changed, they just go on with their lives.
---
*in case this isn't clear, this is in reference to the people I listed in an earlier post as not being "offended," but nonetheless still seeking change in this matter
[ March 21, 2007, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Well put, CT. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Ah. That is probably where the disagreement arises. I (and others, I take it) can assess some things as being better done another way without necessarily being emotionally distressed about it.
No, that doesn't explain the disagreement. The question still remains: What good reason is there to "assess" that it is better to write CE than AD?
The only such reason I can think of is to avoid offending people - but that is only a valid reason if you think it is a good idea to eliminate traditions that offend people even when there is no good reason for their offense. I'd say it is harmful to appease people who get offended by things for no good reason. Thus that is NOT a good reason to change AD to CE.
And if that is not the reason, what is the reason? If there is no reason to write CE instead of AD, I think you'll agree that we should assess that it is better to retain the tradition (since tradition inherently has some degree of value, just for the sake of being tradition) rather than change for no good reason whatsoever. This is especially true if the change will actually do harm, by encouraging people to continue to get offended by things for no good reason and expect society to appease them accordingly.
Tres, don't you think that a paper produced by a team of people from a variety of religions should use a 'non-religious' signifier for dates throughout the paper for the sake of both fairness, consistency, and understandability?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Tresopax, have you not heard of objective principles? Such as fairness, regardless of whether people are upset or not? I mean, I understand that [someone] might live [his or her] life guided by emotion without respect to reason, but surely you understand that not all decisions for other people are ones based solely on emotion, yes?
What, specifically, is unfair about using A.D.?
I would say that it would be unfair only if one group receives some benefit from it when some equally deserving group lacks that benefit. But what benefit does any particular group receive from A.D. being the generally accepted term instead of C.E.? Are you suggesting that Christians get some special honor out of A.D. being used? If so, I think you may be exaggerating the importance of the term to the point of absurdity. I'd bet most people don't even know what it means. If there is any benefit at all that Christians receive from the term, I don't see how anyone could reasonably say that benefit is significant in any meaningful sense.
quote:Tres, don't you think that a paper produced by a team of people from a variety of religions should use a 'non-religious' signifier for dates throughout the paper for the sake of both fairness, consistency, and understandability?
Fairness - See Above. No group receieves any significant unfair benefit from it. Thus it isn't unfair.
Consistency - Using A.D. is more consistent that using C.E., because that is the term that was used in the past.
Understandability - I think everyone understands what A.D. signifies. It stands for the Year One and onward. In fact, I suspect many people do not understand C.E. when they see it because it is not taught as much in schools. I know I learned A.D. first and was likely confused by C.E. the first time I saw it.
So, the first of these three reasons does not support either, because the two terms are equally fair. And the second two actually support the use of A.D. Therefore I still see no good reason to rationally assess that C.E. is a better term. So, as far as fairness, consistency, and undestandability go, I think it is better to use A.D. in a paper.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Are you suggesting that Christians get some special honor out of A.D. being used? If so, I think you may be exaggerating the importance of the term to the point of absurdity.
That is precisely what I'm suggesting, yes.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Then I think you are exaggerating the importance of the term to the point of absurdity. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
On what basis are you claiming an ability to determine what is or is not important to people?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Tom, on what basis are you claiming an ability to determine what is or is not important to people?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*snort* @ Stormy
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm saying, for myself, that it is important TO ME.
I also know for a fact that it's important enough to a number of other people on this board that they refuse to use A.D. even in informal contexts. Clearly, the use of the term can and does have "importance" to individuals; the fact that Conservapedia makes its use one of their mandated pillars strongly supports this conclusion, as well.
I think "A.D." is indeed a special honor accorded Christians. If some Christians are not mindful of the honor being done to them, perhaps due to its relatively insignificance compared to the other, more substantial honors regularly accorded Christianity in this society, that does not change the fact of the honor in the first place.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: What, specifically, is unfair about using A.D.?
I didn't say using "AD" was unfair. You are confusing the general with the particular.
Once we get that cleared up between us, I'll be happy to carry on. But until we get this sort of issue cleared up, this will look decidedly like a discussion not in good faith.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I'm not saying it isn't important to some people. I'm saying that rationally it should not be. I understand that many people are emotionally offended by it, but CT indicated that she believes she has some rational reason to consider it important - independent from emotion.
As for why it should not be rationally considered important... just compare it to all the other similarly common terms that derive from one particular group. Many of these have been mentioned already, including the days of the week. What about St. Valentine's Day? Or St. Patrick's Day - for that matter, do the Irish get an unfair benefit from St. Patrick's Day? What about the names of various places around the country? Maryland is named after British Royalty and seems to imply that it is in fact Mary's land - is this giving an unfair honor to Americans of British descent? The list of terms like this could go on forever. What rational explanation is there for why all of these terms do not give unfair honors to the groups they originated with, while A.D. does?
Is it that A.D. is more important than all these other terms? If that is the case then consider the fact that Common Era is an English expression, and thus gives an unfair honor to the English speaking, over all other languages in this country. (English is not our official language after all.) Wouldn't a latin expression be more fair, since nobody speaks latin as their native tongue anymore?
Unless there is a reason why A.D. for Christians is different from all these other cases, I think you cannot say there is some special honor that Christians get from having the term which other groups do not get from all those other terms. And thus there is not a rational justification for saying Christians get a significant honor from it.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I didn't say using "AD" was unfair. You are confusing the general with the particular.
Let's talk about the particular then, because I agree that there are objective principles such as "fairness", but I don't see how any valid objective principles would suggest A.D. is an inferior term to B.C.
If you don't believe A.D. is unfair, what do you think is rationally wrong with it?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Are we both clear on the distinction above between the general and particular?
It's an interesting conversation, but it is happening at multiple levels, and I'm not willing to muddy them together. To much work for me to keep pulling them apart, with too little to gain.
---
Edited to add:
We both posted at nearly the same time. But first, I want to be sure you understand why your restatement of what I said was incorrect. And to finish that conversation before we meander around through the details of another conversation.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: If you don't believe A.D. is unfair ...
I also didn't say this. You are confusing a double negation with an assertion.
I find you very confusing to talk with. There are basic unjustified assumptions that get jumbled in with a lot of tangents and asides -- but the substantive core just doesn't make sense. The center doesn't hold.
I'm not sure if that is because I don't know how to read you, or if you do this on purpose, or if it is accidental on your part, or if I am seeing things which are not there. [It doesn't matter, really, other than to try to address it so that we can have a conversation which works for both of us. I'd like to do that. But I'm not going to engage in just talking in circles to hear the sound of my own voice, rather than to make substantive steps in communicating ideas. Currently this feels like the former to me, and that isn't what I want out of conversations I put my time into.]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Okay, so you didn't say you believe A.D. is unfair, but you also didn't say you don't believe A.D. is unfair. In other words, you haven't said either way. What do you actually believe then? Is it fair or not fair?
Tell me and then we can go from there....
For reference, I believe it is objectively fair.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Okay, so you didn't say you believe A.D. is unfair, but you also didn't say you don't believe A.D. is unfair. In other words, you haven't said either way. What do you actually believe then? Is it fair or not fair?
Tell me and then we can go from there....
For reference, I believe it is objectively fair.
Tresopax, I am trying to finish our initial conversation first. You had implied there was no reason to make such a change except because someone is "offended."*** I was answering that issue. That was the initial stepping-off point of our discussion.
I don't want to bunny-hop around talking at great length about all and sundry without making sense. I don't find it productive. If that is what you want, or if that is all you are able to do, then we shouldn't continue with this. Our expectations would be too divergent.
However, if you are willing to take one point at a time and discuss it substantively, I am more than delighted to do so. We would, I assure you, get to the question of "fairness" with respect to CE in due time.
--- ***specifically, "Why would it be a good idea, except to avoid offending people? I don't really see any other benefit to changing the tradition."
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
When I said there is no reason to make such a change except because someone is offended, I was refering to the particular case of A.D.
Speaking generally, I think it makes rational sense to use one term instead of another if the benefits of that change outweigh the costs. Benefits could include things such as avoiding offending people, serving some objective principle like fairness, facilitating easy understanding, etc. The list of possible benefits could be very long. Similarly, the list of costs could be very long. It could include things such as the degree to which the change would cause confusion, the degree to which it is inconsistent, the inherent cost of changing tradition (since all other things equal, I think we'd rather keep traditions), and the degree to which a change would conflict with other objective principles.
To judge which term to use, I would try to take into account the benefits that I can think of and then compare those to the costs I can think of. And unless one side had all benefits and no costs, or vice versa, the decision would depend on how I weighted the costs and benefits in my judgement.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: When I said there is no reason to make such a change except because someone is offended, I was refering to the particular case of A.D.
Ah, okay. I was misreading you, then. I should go back and reread with this in mind.
quote:(since all other things equal, I think we'd rather keep traditions)
Many, such as my husband and I, would not commit to that. Might be better to phrase that as "I'd" rather than "we'd," or perhaps just to clarify the "we" as referring to a specific group you had in mind.
I'll get back to this after work. Thanks. That helps a good deal. (Also, my apologies for misreading you.)
[ March 21, 2007, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
My way of putting it may be oversimplifying, but my guess is that you and your husband do keep at least some traditions just for tradition's sake. However, that is a side tangent that would require a great deal of additional discussion to get to the bottom of. So for now I think we can file it away as something we disagree upon, and come back to it if we need to.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Oh, sure. But we take it as a value to sometimes seek change for it's own sake -- so we wouldn't say "since all other things equal, I think we'd rather keep traditions."
Sometimes we would, but at least as often, we'd do the opposite (and value that choice as important and good, as well).
But you are right, it's a side point. Back to work for now.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Okay, I went through last night and copied all of your and kat's posts into a single document, along with surrounding posts when they seemed relevant to me. I emailed it to my work account, and time permitting I'll dig in and really analyze your interactions with each other this afternoon. If I don't get to it while at work, though, I'm almost certain not to have time to get to it after work tonight.
I will say, though, that after a quick read of the document I'm surprised at just how much less unpleasant both sides of the exchanges between you two were. I think that I'd built both sides of the interaction up to be much more hostile than they actually were.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:your post wasn't horribly rude, but I'm reasonably certain that you wouldn't have taken that tone with anyone other than kat
1) You yourself admitted that I wasn't particularly rude. And it wasn't nasty. I don't see how that was me "fighting dirty" as you accused me of.
It was definitely rude, to my eye; it just wasn't horribly so. How are you defining "nasty" here, anyway?
quote:2) I thought I already addressed this particular post but I can't find it. You are wrong about my tone. I think you may be reading it as more hostile than it is because you expect me to be.
There is always the potential for misreading people in online communications like this, but regardless of what you intended by "Yeah, that's kind of the point", it read as churlish to me.
I don't think that my interpretation of your post was colored by my expectations, because I was surprised by your post. When I'd read the first line of it I actually stopped reading for a moment and thought "man, why's he being a jerk to Kate? I thought that he liked her." It was only when I picked back up and read the next line that I realized that your tone flowed from the fact that you thought that you were addressing kat.
quote:I'm kind of puzzled by the sake thing. I've gotten from a couple of people in regards to this. I'm not talking about sakeriver.
I assumed that you must be talking about sakeriver because it's the only group (relevant to the forums) that a person might think of (however inaccurately) as a "clique" that I would be a member of that you wouldn't also be a member of.
quote:This has been going on for longer than sake's been around, I think. It's more people I'd term jatraqueros.
I can't think of a group that I would refer to as "jatraqueros" that you wouldn't be a part of.
quote:Also, you may be missing my point. I don't particularly want to join sakeriver.
I'm aware of that. Given that membership there is open to anyone, I'd imagine that if you wanted to be a member you would be.
quote:I'm also not looking to get people to like me or be popular.
I agree--I don't think that you're interested in being liked.
quote:I just wish that I could be treated fairly, to not have people think that attacking me with baseless accusations and lies is okay, even if I'm not popular.
This is a perfectly reasonable thing to want. Perfectly reasonable thing to expect, too. In instances in which this happens, it's a failing on the part of the individual doing it.
quote: It's just when people accuse me of bad behavior, I'd like for them to at least try to show me where I behaved poorly and to possibly respect my chance to defend myself.
I'm working on it. Honestly though I've been trying to get this post written since about 10:00 this morning, so the chances that I'll actually have something else for you before I go home today are fairly slim.
quote:edit: For what it's worth, the last 3 times that Rakeesh or Scott did this, they just insulted me made accusations and then responded to my request for where I did these things with more insults and then left, so I do appreciate that you are doing more than that.
Sure. I haven't actually paid much attention to Rakeesh's or Scott's interactions with you, so I can't speak to what they've said or done. As I said earlier, though, I can understand someone's wanting to be given concrete examples of their "fighting dirty", or however it was that I phrased that earlier; it seems like a fairly reasonable request.
Man, and now I can finally click "Add Reply", a little less than 6 hours after I started this post. I expect that the thread has moved on to either a discussion of homosexuality or a series of puns by now.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I have to say, this is the first time in my life I've been called popular. This is strange for two reasons:
1. I am not in high school, the entertainment industry, or politics.
2. I am not nearly so delusional as to think that thoughtful, intelligent people whom I have never met and with lives of their own would perjure themselves in order to attack a phantom windmill on behalf of my charming...typeface...
In sum, I think Squicky is overestimating me and underestimating others.
If I were a selfish wretch I'd be delighted with the blood on the floor that is staining this living room, but since I am NOT a selfish wretch and not actually a character in a Sweet Valley High book or a romance novel where the hero is named Roman Forsythe the Third, I would prefer that Squicky and I both simply forget everything that has come before and treat each other like the utter strangers we actually are.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Why not, rather than forgetting it, just admit that you've been jerks to each other and resolve to stop?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If this doesn't work, you are welcome to broker the next round of talks, Tom.
I'm hoping this will work.
Come on, Squick, what do you think? You lay down your rock and I lay down my sword and we forget about and ignore each other like civilized people?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I smell romance in the air!
You know, the couple that starts off squabbling and arguing at the beginning of the movie ends up having, like, five kids and moving to the burbs by the end of the movie.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Aw Stormy, while part of me thinks that was probably the funniest that could be posted at that moment, it's probably not helpful.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"So what was your meet-cute?" "It was a gay marriage thread, I believe."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
This bloodbath is NOT for the amusement of the peanut gallery.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
We need some kind of tag to indicate which bloodbaths are for our amusement. *pouts*
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*bump*
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Noemon, I reread the thread too. In the specific instance that you are talking about, I could see how that would come across as rude if you thought I was talking to boots. It could sound like I was saying "No duh!"
However, I didn't realize that I was responding to her. Instead, I thought I was responding to a comment of the sort "I don't see what the big problem is. Most of my textbooks already use the CE/BCE thing." from one of the people who are against the CE/BCE thing. Since one of the big points of the thread is a response to people who are upset and think it is biased to use CE, I was noting that this was kind of the point of our discussion. I don't see that as rude and I didn't have a desire to be rude or hostile with it.
---
And, while you are looking at the thread, I'd recommend looking for negative evidence as well as positive. As I red it over, I was looking for things I could have said were I looking to pick at kat.
For example, this all started when she made an unjustified, disrespectful, dismissive characterization of boots's comments (for which - and maybe you disagree - I believe she owes an as yet unoffered apology for.) I corrected her with what I thought was the extremely obvious meaning. She told me, with no explanation or elaboration, etc. that I was wrong. Then boots came along and pretty strongly confirmed that what I said was right. kat ignored this and tried to avoid the issue completely.
Did I insult her? Did I act in a nasty way or fight dirty? Did I treat her significantly differently than I would other people who showed the same poor behavior? I don't think I did.
kat has a history of doing things like this. She has deleted posts and whole threads when what develops made her look bad. In fact, previously, when I addressed her deleting a thread for this reason, I was attacked with the same "You are only doing this because it is kat." and unsupported accusations of being nasty as here. And yet, I did nothing more than I had done in several other occasions where other people deleted threads that I was engaged in.
---
I think it is possible that perhaps people are viewing my responses through the lens of what they would do in the same situation. I don't think that is accurate. I think I have a very different approach to Hatrack than many others. I don't have a high opinion of kat and expect poor behavior from her based on her history here, but I don't have much in the way of negative emotions towards her. I don't get all that emotionally involved. I think my emotionlessness has even been a topic of converstaion a couple of times.
In that vein, I'm kind of puzzled by the characterization of what went on in this thread a bloodbath. I honestly don't understand that perspective.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
kat, I'm not sure, but are you actually admitting that you've been a jerk?
In any case, ummm...sure? I have no problem not posting things at you maliciously. I think it would do wonders if you stopped doing this to me.
---
I would still appreciate people actually showing me where I've done wrong as opposed to just accusing me of it. If I am shown where my poor behavior is, I'll gladly apologize and change it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Squick, it's the repetition that makes it look like a grudge.
boots clarified. At that point, the discussion about what she meant is over. But then you post this:
quote:kat, Could you explain how my interpretation was wrong? I thought it was clearly what she was saying and boots seems to think that it was a pretty good summation? What did you think she was saying and how did you have such confidence as to tell me I was obviously wrong?
and then this:
quote:Also, should I just not expect an answer from you on the "Your interpretation is wrong." thing?
And then this:
quote:Also, you're not going to answer or stand behind your statements, are you? In case you are wondering, the adult thing to do is acknowledge you were wrong and appologize.
Desperate misinterpretations like this one don't help either:"
quote:kat, So you think that dkw and boots don't love Jesus?
If there's only one thing that makes you sound hostile, it's the way you take your interpretation of what someone else said, turn it into a snarky question, and then repeatedly demand that people answer the question.
And this is AFTER it's obvious to you that the person had a different interpretation of what was said than you.
It's actually damn annoying. Moreso when you insist on telling people that they said something they didn't say, which wasn't really done here. But still annoying whether that happens or not.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Squick, if you are looking for unanimous condemnsation of me and a vindication of you, it is never, ever going to happen. It isn't. That only happens in poorly-written movies. I'm sorry.
I don't need an apology from you. You can if you would prefer, but I don't need it.
I am going to focus on two sentences:
quote:I'm not sure, but are you actually admitting that you've been a jerk?
Sure. I'm sure I have been. I imagine we disagree on the details, but I can't pretend that I have been blameless at all times. I apologize, and I wish I had behaved differently at those times.
quote:In any case, ummm...sure?
Great!!!
To be clear, you are agreeing to these sentences, right?
quote:I would prefer that Squicky and I both simply forget everything that has come before and treat each other like the utter strangers we actually are.
and
quote:You lay down your rock and I lay down my sword and we forget about and ignore each other like civilized people?
Unless you say differently, I will assume that you are. This is great.
It's over. Past is wiped. New slate for everyone. This is great.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Noemon, Since you are going through this and are respected by both parties, could I ask you to weigh in on what Dag said? You certainly don't have to, but I'm pretty darn sure nothing I said will effect his opinion and I believe he does me a disservice with the above.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
But it's over, right? I thought we had an offer of peace out there and accepted. There's no need to continue fighting the skirmishes.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
kat, I'm agreeing to what I said. That I'll refrain from posting malicious things at you and you do the same for me. I don't think it is really possible or productive to forget the past, but forgiveness I basically give free.
---
You still owe boots an apology.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think it's too big and deep of a divide for a limited cease fire. I'm looking for all out peace.
Forgive and forget. Completely. I'm sorry for when I was a jerk to you, and I'd like for this to all be over.
WHat do you think?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You still owe boots an apology.
You can't help yourself, can you?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Dagsy, it's okay. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, Do you disagree with my perspective or is my fault just expressing it? Do you think that kat did not wrong boots?
I think, when people do things wrong they should be held to it, even (or actually especially) if you like them.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'll talk to boots about it and work it out with her. I'm going to repeat what I said above about this.
I think it's too big and deep of a divide for a limited cease fire. I'm looking for all out peace.
Forgive and forget. Completely. I'm sorry for when I was a jerk to you, and I'd like for this to all be over.
What do you think?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Dag, Do you disagee with my perspective or is my fault jsut expressing it?
I think, when people do things wrong they should be held to it, even (or actually especially) if you like them.
You said it already. Pages ago. Why do you keep picking at it and picking at it and picking at it?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Because it has not been rectified? I wasn't aware that there was a statute of limitations on wronging people.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Dag, please? I'm hoping all the skirmishes to be over.
----
I'll talk to boots about it and work it out with her. I'm going to repeat what I said above about this.
I think it's too big and deep of a divide for a limited cease fire. I'm looking for all out peace.
Forgive and forget. Completely. I'm sorry for when I was a jerk to you, and I'd like for this to all be over.
What do you think? Do you want to think about it? We could resume this conversation a little bit later if you'd like to think about it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
kat, As I've told you on mulitple occasions, I don't have a problem with you as a person. I have a problem with your frequent poor behavior. If you cease acting in objectionable ways, I won't be objecting. This isn't a matter of forgetting. It's about how you are going to act in the future.
Do you get what you did wrong here?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Because it has not been rectified? I wasn't aware that there was a statute of limitations on wronging people.
Why is it so important to YOU that it be rectified? For that matter, how do you know it hasn't been?
You stated your opinion about an interaction here. That's fine - everyone does it at some point.
But you've also taken upon yourself the responsibility to get Kat to apologize for something you think she did to someone else. You're not responding to arguments about whether what she did was wrong or not none of those have been made in this exchange. You're not forwarding the conversation about whether an apology is deserved or not. You're simply picking at a scab that might or might not exist on kmboot's knee.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Squicky, I'm looking for peace and a new start. If something happens in the future you want to object to, that's fine, but I want both of us to react with no weight of history. You read my posts as the posts of the stranger I am to you. I'll read and react to your posts like the stranger you actually are.
Clean slate. No mutual gagging for the future, but the past is gone. Clean start. What do you think?
If you're right and I do what you think I do, you'll have lots and lots of chances to call me out again and see how I react. But - must be done WITHOUT your conceptions of me. I will do the same for you.
I've apologized and I meant it. I don't even need your apology for this to happen. What do you think?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, How are you acting differently from what you are saying I am? Why are you taking this upon yourself? If that is between kat and boots, why isn't this between kat and I?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Squicky, I'm looking for peace and a new start. If something happens in the future you want to object to, that's fine, but I want both of us to react with no weight of history. You read my posts as the posts of the stranger I am to you. I'll read and react to your posts like the stranger you actually are.
Clean slate. No mutual gagging for the future, but the past is gone. Clean start. What do you think?
If you're right and I do what you think I do, you'll have lots and lots of chances to call me out again and see how I react. But - must be done WITHOUT your conceptions of me. I will do the same for you.
I've apologized and I meant it. I don't even need your apology for this to happen. What do you think?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Frankly, I had forgotten about the misinterpretation. Please, MrSquicky, please don't let a slight* to me stop you from starting fresh with kat.
*If it was, I don't rememember.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Because we're disagreeing about something and exchanging new ideas about it.
If, tomorrow, I post something saying "Squick, you shouldn't have told Kat that she needed to apologize yesterday" in a post replying to you about something different (if still related), then I would be doing what I called you out on. But I'm not.
In fact, I've been answering your questions in every post except the first one of this exchange.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
*sigh* It's not about a particular issue and it's not a personal thing. It's about repeated poor behavior. kat frequently behaves poorly towards myself and others, but very few people seem to call her on it.
As I've said in the past, there are certain roles I play on this board that I don't particularly relish, but that I do because I think they are important and if I don't, no one else will. I wish that kat's clique would step in to correct her when she does wrong. If they did, I wouldn't feel a need to. But they don't.
edit: We had the same issue with Leto with many of the same people.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, And I haven't been engaged on the issue of the apology. If I had been, I would explain why I'm saying what I am.
You and I are having a dialog on it. kat and I are not.
---
edit: In the same way, I kept bringing up her false accusation at me because she was trying to get away with not addressing it. I've seen you do the exact same thing.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Squicky,
Please accept my apology for my poor behavior in the past. I would like to start new and have a fresh peace. Please forgive me.
If you're right and I do what you think I do, you'll have lots and lots of chances to call me out again and see how I react. But - must be done WITHOUT your conceptions of me. I will do the same for you.
Forgive and forget. Clean start. What do you think?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:As I've said in the past, there are certain roles I play on this board that I don't particularly relish, but that I do because I think they are important and if I don't, no one else will.
Why not ask the mod? Don't put yourself out on our account.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
kat, As I said, you basically get forgiveness for free. I don't believe that really forgetting is actually possible, but I'll try to keep an open mind.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Ask the mod to do what, Tom?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Can I ask you a question? What does forgiveness mean to you?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't bear you ill will for things you have done. I hold no resentment.
We had a whole thread about this at one point.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
How do you see things changing in the future as a result of this reapproachment?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't. I don't expect you to change your behavior.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Do you expect to change any of your behavior?
I apologized to you. Is that new?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
No. But, as I've said, if people could show me what I've done wrong, I'd gladly change.
---
Yes, you apologizing is new. I'll have to see how you act before I'm really going to be able to accept that you are going to change though.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You mean people besides me and Noemon and Dag?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Are you retracting and your agreement to a clean slate?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
You may be using a different definition of show me what I've done wrong than I am. Noemon has said that he will do it though, so I'm waiting.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Are you retracting your forgiveness and your agreement to a clean slate?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
No. I made no agreement to a clean slate. I'll try to keep an open mind.
If you don't want honest answers to your questions, you are asking the wrong person.
What changes do you see this having?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I was hoping we could treat each other like the utter strangers we are and you react no differently to me than to anyone else.
It means if you would like to be the policeman of me, you must be the policeman of everyone on the board. Bean Counter. Yourself. King of Men. Tom. The teenagers. The scions. Everyone. You treat me no differently than you treat anyone else.
Should we put conditions? If either of us breaks the pact and brings up the past or says something snarky, then...what? A voluntary self-imposed exile? We appoint Noemon as the judge?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
For pete's sake, kat. It's really not that hard. Don't act petty and nasty. If you don't, you won't have a problem with me. Or if you do, you can easily bring up this thread and I'll be extremely ashamed and disgraced.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No, I do not agree with you being the self-appointed kat policeman. Peace means you treat me no differently from everyone. If you vigilante me, you must vigilante everyone.
Do you agree to the conditions?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hrm. Well, that went about as well as I expected. *sigh*
Edit: Well, there was a deleted post. Oh, well.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Mr. Squicky wrote:
quote:Sure. Whatever.
These conditions?:
1. If you would like to be the policeman of me, you must be the policeman of everyone on the board. Bean Counter. Yourself. King of Men. Tom. The teenagers. The scions. Everyone. You treat me no differently than you treat anyone else.
2. No bringing up past - address present behavior only.
3. Being civil and respectful to each other at all times.
If any of those are broken and Noemon agrees that it has been, then a self-imposed exile. Noemon can suggest a length.
These conditions? Agreed?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Errr...you're using treat you no differently very strangely there. It's sort of like accuracy is making sure everyone has an equal weight given to what they say, regardless of the validity of their positions.
I certainly don't agree to that. I freely admit, by that definition, that I treat you differently from say KoM. That's because most other people do too. I've already made the point that I don't really like calling you when you do wrong. But no one else will. KoM, on the other hand...everyone jumps on him. There's no need for me to say anything there.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So there is no peace or clean slate?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Are you planning to address anything I have to say?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
kat, what about conditions on your side?
Also, you need to make sure Jake is willing to be your judge.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Ooops, I guess you meant 2 & 3 to apply to you both, 1 is the only one that's Squick specific. Nevermind.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Wait a minute, conditions on Kat's side? Those conditions were mutual is how I read them.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I will be civil and respectful to Squicky at all times.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I initially missed the word 'all' in that post.
I thought, "There ya go -- baby steps."
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
(Condition 1 could not be mutual, so I read them as a list of what kat wanted from Squick. My mistake.)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Squicky, I do not agree to you being the self-appointed vigilante on kat. You should not take that upon yourself, and no one else has asked you to do so.
However, if the mod of this forum, Papa Janitor, agrees that you can be so, then you can.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Can someone be the policeman of me? I need watching. I do.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm not a self-appointed vigilante on kat. I don't follow you around waiting for you to screw up. I address people's behavior when I thin kthat it is important for me to do so. In your case, from my perspective, you have been one of the nastiest posters on the forum, but very, very few people ever seem to call you on it. I feel it is important for someone to address behavior such as yours, so I did when I came across it. Again, it is not personal, but rather based on your repeated poor behavior.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
But there's that clean slate. So, no past behavior. You must treat me like everyone else and start from this day.
Do you agree to the clean slate?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
This is getting ridiculous. Squick, there have been times when you've called kat on something and I've completely agreed with you; there have been times when she or someone else has called you on something and I've completely agreed with them. The reason people are using terms like "bloodbath" even though you claim to be completely uninvested is that every time this happens, it wrecks whatever other discussion had been going on in the thread at the time.
From where I'm sitting, even if you're completely right and kat's completely wrong in what you're both claiming about each other's behaviour in every single instance, calling each other out for poor behaviour has a destructive effect on the rest of the forum -- and, as you yourself admit, has absolutely no impact on how either of you conduct yourselves.
It's blatantly obvious to everyone with the possible exceptions of you and kat that this is detrimental to the functioning of the forum. It's gotten to the point where you continuing to harp on it "because no one else will" is beginning to look less like an attempt at public service and more like deliberate sabotaging of dialogue on this forum.
Years ago I got sick of discussing a particular topic here. The discussions were never fruitful and I always felt that their net value was negative. So, I just dropped it. I don't talk about that here any more, and as a consequence the net value I get out of my interactions on this forum increased, and I go on hiatus much less often. I don't think this is always the right course of action, but I do think that in the particular case of you calling kat on perceived or actual poor behaviour and you or kat debating the same, it's absolutely the best thing to do.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't treat everyone else in any one specifc manner. As I said, I make comments when I think they are important. If you want to make some sort of binding contract, I don't think I'm going to go along with your number 1. The other 2 are just fine though.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Twinky, I agree it's destructive to the forum. I'm trying to fix it.
Number one is important. If you go after me, you must go after everyone else equally.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: In your case, from my perspective, you have been one of the nastiest posters on the forum, but very, very few people ever seem to call you on it.
I wonder why it hasn't occured to someone as bright as you, Squick, that there's an explanation for that besides the one you've settled on. I don't think kat gets a free pass to be nasty. I think that well-liked posters (a category I count kat firmly in, whether or not she agrees) do get some leniency, but I very rarely see really poor behavior go by unremarked upon.
I personally have gotten in several spats with kat, here and elsewhere, when I felt she acted poorly (the feeling was mutual, as I remember). So have KarlEd and TomD, to name a few. The difference between the three of us and you is that we've mananged not to let those disagreements color our interactions from there on out. Kat, for her part, has done the same.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'm not a self-appointed vigilante on kat. I don't follow you around waiting for you to screw up. I address people's behavior when I thin kthat it is important for me to do so. In your case, from my perspective, you have been one of the nastiest posters on the forum, but very, very few people ever seem to call you on it. I feel it is important for someone to address behavior such as yours, so I did when I came across it. Again, it is not personal, but rather based on your repeated poor behavior.
Delicious, delicious contradiction.
Now please proceed with dismissing my remarks on the grounds that I am a shambling kat-zombie.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Does that mean you can only eat kat's brains? o_O
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
" Kat, for her part, has done the same."
No. Kat has many good qualities, but letting things go is not one of them.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Dude, I like you, but why won't you let it die? You're like some kind of unstoppable posting cyborg from the future. She already agreed to start over with you. It's already pretty clear that that's all that you're getting. Let it go, man.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I don't see that as a contradiction at all, Rakeesh. It seems to me that Squick is saying that he feels obligated to police certain behaviors when he sees them and when no one else does. I also don't think that posting something to the effect of "Aha! You hypocrite, you!" is helpful.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:every time this happens, it wrecks whatever other discussion had been going on in the thread at the time.
Did it do so here? Because, as far as I could tell, there was a conversation continuing that I was also taking part in. And, from my recollection, this happens in a lot of the threads.
Also, if you want to throw accusations at me, could you back them up? That's what I've started out asking, and it apparently still hasn't sunk in.
I get that this is detrimental to the forum. I don't think that this is my fault or that the solution of I should back down is a fair one or one that is ultiamtely good for the forum either.
If you see where I've called kat on things and agreed, why didn't you call her on them? That would be my much preferred solution. Am I responsible for no one else ever calling her on things?
I don't think you get this. I think kat has often been a very nasty, destructive poster. She has often been so directly to me, including a period of some months where she just followed me around posting insults not connected to the discussion at all. And yet no one says anything about this. She deletes posts and threads and people attack me when I say that she should have done that.
I watched Leto do serious damage to this forum because you people let him and even stuck up for him. I see the same thing, to a lesser extent, giong on with kat.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hmmm. You know, I'm not sure! I suppose she'd best not leave me on my own initiative long enough to find out!
----------
This effort at reconciliation, or at least polite conversation, is doomed the way it stands. Kat believes there has been bad behavior on both sides, and offers to change hers if Mr. Squicky will change his.
Mr. Squicky, on the other hand, asserts that the bad behavior is entirely one-sided, invited, and in fact needed by the community. He denies his behavior was ever wrong, will not agree to change it, and refuses to apologize for it.
I suppose it's not doomed, necessarily. If Kat-the person who has been one of the meanest, nastiest, most awful people on the forum for years now, according to Mr. Squicky-agrees to, without any promises, change her ways, Mr. Squicky will graciously agree to stop criticizing her.
Given that Mr. Squicky believes those things about Kat, who here believes he actually expects this to go anywhere? Not me. This is a sham. Kat is making a genuine effort, and you're spitting in her face, Mr. Squicky. Excellent work, hero!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:a period of some months where she just followed me around posting insults not connected to the discussion at all.
I remember that. I'm sorry. It was not productive and I shouldn't have done it. My life was a mess and I was horribly depressed. I have apologized for this before.
It was also FOUR YEARS AGO! Dude, time to let it go.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:every time this happens, it wrecks whatever other discussion had been going on in the thread at the time.
Did it do so here?
Here more than any other thread to date.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I don't see that as a contradiction at all, Rakeesh. It seems to me that Squick is saying that he feels obligated to police certain behaviors when he sees them and when no one else does. I also don't think that posting something to the effect of "Aha! You hypocrite, you!" is helpful.
Why not? With the exception of no one calling him on it, I'm applying the exact same reasoning Mr. Squicky does, Jon Boy.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I haven't had time to read much of this thread today. I'm not going to be online from now until early next week, or at least not enough to be participating on any of the forums to any great degree. So, nope, haven't forgotten about this thread, but I don't have time to post anything in it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Squicky, it seems like your main concern is that no one ever calls me on things.
I can tell you, I do get called on it. Absolutely. In fact, this entire attempt is a result of some thinking prompted by someone calling me on it a few weeks ago. It isn't public, but it happens. There is more to this world than is posted on the forums.
There is no need for you to be the vigilante. I assure you, there are people who already fill that job.
What do you need to be assured of this enough to take yourself off the task? I am not comfortable with you taking on that task, and if your goal is to make sure someone does it and as long as it is done you happy, then knowing someone else is doing should satisfy. Is that right? What do you need to be assured of this?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Rakeesh: You honestly think that comment was helpful to the discussion at hand? Even if you think Squick is wrong, doing the same thing (from your perspective) and then saying, "But I'm just doing what he's doing!" does nothing to help reconcile the two of them.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
kat, In order for it to have an effect on the forum as a whole, it needs to be done on the forum. The observed conduct doesn't just have effect on the people involved, but also on the people watching. For example, because I dont' see anyone call you on it, I call you on it. Other people reda it and think that this is a forum where such behavior is acceptible.
I don't do private emails for things like this for this reason.
---
quote:I remember that. I'm sorry. It was not productive and I shouldn't have done it. My life was a mess and I was horribly depressed. I have apologized for this before.
It was also FOUR YEARS AGO! Dude, time to let it go.
You misunderstand my point in bringing this up. You, as you admitted, were doing this blatantly and for some time. During that time, no one ever said a thing to you. I don't really care about what you were doing. I didn't care at the time. But the fact that no one said anything was, to me, extremely telling about the members of the forum.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Noemon called me on it, Squicky. That's why I stopped. Maybe it is time for you to reasses.
There is no popularity contest. I am not running for office and you're the free press. There's just a large conversation among friends, and it is being disrupted. No one is being fooled because everything is in the open. No one is crowning me prom queen in part because no one would but mostly because there is no prom queen. There is nothing but the conversations, and this grudge from years ago is disrupting it.
What do you need in order to let this go?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Did he? He didn't do this in any place where I could see it. And it's not like he's coming forward with it now to say "Hey, you know, Squicky's got a point." Whereas it seems like all the members of sakeriver are over here in masse attacking me.
---
What do you mean, what do I need? Have I been unclear at all?
quote:For pete's sake, kat. It's really not that hard. Don't act petty and nasty. If you don't, you won't have a problem with me. Or if you do, you can easily bring up this thread and I'll be extremely ashamed and disgraced.
I'm not the one keeping this alive. I'm just responding to what is being said. Have I been taking new opportunities to being up things unconnected to what peopel are challenging/accusing me of? I don't see it. Are you saying, as everyone sees to be sayng "You should back down while people keep making unsupported accusations at you."?
Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: But the fact that no one said anything was, to me, extremely telling about the members of the forum.
So..umm...I choose not to get involved in these squabbles. Am I one of the "members of the forum" you're referring to? Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yeah. You're a member of the forum that doesn't get involved in the squabbles.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Squicky, privately contacting a friend to discuss his or her perceived misbehavior is widely seen as being not just acceptable but recommended. I can't imagine that your protest can change that.
Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :
Okay, then.
:letting it go:
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Did it do so here? Because, as far as I could tell, there was a conversation continuing that I was also taking part in. And, from my recollection, this happens in a lot of the threads.
The thread has gone from being about Conservapedia to being about you and kat. So, yes, it did do so here.
quote:Also, if you want to throw accusations at me, could you back them up? That's what I've started out asking, and it apparently still hasn't sunk in.
Stating that I've agreed with you on some occasions and with kat on others is hardly "throwing accusations." Are you asking me to dig through the forum archives and come up with an instance where I thought you were rude? I don't have to look far: Dagonee's post on the last page (12:54 PM, about a third of the way down the page) is an example. I agree with his assessment of that string of quotes.
quote:I get that this is detrimental to the forum. I don't think that this is my fault or that the solution of I should back down is a fair one or one that is ultiamtely good for the forum either.
It doesn't matter whose fault it is, or that you think you simply dropping it would be unfair. What matters is that you're in a position to singlehandedly stop it, by simply doing nothing. I think that you stopping would be less detrimental to the forum than you continuing as you have done, regardless of kat's actions.
quote:If you see where I've called kat on things and agreed, why didn't you call her on them?
Because it was always obvious that it wouldn't help. To date, despite various people's efforts, no way has been found to defuse a spat between you and kat once it begins. This will be the last time I try; if it happens again, I'm just going to stop reading the thread.
Further, there have been times where you weren't involved when I thought kat or someone else was out of line. Sometimes I call the person on it, sometimes I don't. Sometimes I do it in public, sometimes in private. There are a lot of factors, ranging from the state of the discussion, to how tired I happen to be feeling. That goes for everyone whose posts I read.
quote:That would be my much preferred solution. Am I responsible for no one else ever calling her on things?
No. You're responsible for you calling her on things. It's also worth noting that, as you are not a moderator here, it would behoove you -- and any of us who would call someone else out for poor behaviour -- to use as light and infrequent a touch as possible. That's one of the reasons I call other people on stuff as rarely as I do: it is not, in point of fact, our place to do so.
quote:I don't think you get this.
I do, actually. No snark intended -- I really do get it. Also, on the whole, I like you and often agree with your posts on issues other than this one.
quote: I think kat has often been a very nasty, destructive poster. She has often been so directly to me, including a period of some months where she just followed me around posting insults not connected to the discussion at all. And yet no one says anything about this. She deletes posts and threads and people attack me when I say that she should have done that.
Yes, I get all of this. I think you don't get that I'm not attacking you. I'm saying that this is getting in the way of you contributing to this community and indeed in the way of this community discussing anything when the two of you are involved.
quote:I watched Leto do serious damage to this forum because you people let him and even stuck up for him. I see the same thing, to a lesser extent, giong on with kat.
I don't think Leto did serious damage to this forum. The only person who I would say has done damage to this forum that even begins to approach the level of "serious" is Cedrios.
I don't think any single poster has the kind of power over the community that you're attributing to kat, let alone to Leto. That's why I think you calling kat on perceived poor behaviour whenever you see it is, in the aggregate, a greater negative than letting it slide, even if you're right every time -- I don't think kat has the power you attribute to her, even if she's as destructive as you think she is.
quote:Whereas it seems like all the members of sakeriver are over here in masse attacking me.
I see at most two posters who could arguably be attacking you. The rest of the people involved in this discussion are trying to end it and prevent future reocurrances. Added: Your problem, I think, is that you interpret any criticism of your actions as an "attack."
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Can someone be the policeman of me? I need watching. I do.
You know, I really try. But there are only so many hours in the day. And now that you post outside of business hours . . . well, I think we're going to have to budget for an assistant for me.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
He did, at the time. You can tell, because I stopped.
Squicky, are you looking for an outpouring of public vindication of you and a unanimous condemnation of me? It's never, ever going to happen. That is never going to happen. People aren't like that and Hatrack isn't like that. BALDAR didn't get universal condemnation. You'll be waiting for forever, and you'll be miserable all the while.
It is not acceptable for you to appoint yourself as my personal monitor. Step down, kid. There are other people on the job. It isn't your job, four-year-old hurt notwithstanding.
Have you really been hurting about that for four years? I'm so sorry. I shouldn't have done it, and I apologize.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Can someone be the policeman of me? I need watching. I do.
*naughty thoughts*
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:To date, despite various people's efforts, no way has been found to defuse a spat between you and kat once it begins.
Aw, twink, ScottR and Noemone have both stopped me from comments on the forum, and other people have stopped with comments off.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Stormy, you volunteering to assist?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Florida abstains!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I didn't ask about your personal life!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You can't say courteously, cuz I'M from Florida.
Stole the 1776 quote right outta your mouth!
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Who was it that said something to the effect of 'behaving in a way that emphasizes taking the high road essentially defeats the purpose'? Was it a comedian? Someone who posts here? Both? I've seen less angst than this close discussions previously. Can we get some of this, please?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
In before the thread lock
HI MOM I WAZ HERE
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I didn't ask about your personal life!
Wait, aren't we talking about playing the violin?
quote: You can't say courteously, cuz I'M from Florida.
Stole the 1776 quote right outta your mouth!
That would've been funnier if I'd have said that. Durn.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Now I'm thinking of policing me with handcuffs...
In ruffled shirts. Courteously.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Storm is uncomfortable! Looks like now is a good time for...kittens!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sorry, Storm. Blame Rivka. She was supposed to be watching me.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I told you I need help!
*attempts to catch up*
Bad Kate! Behave! Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
*naughty thoughts about that icon*
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Bad Stormy! Behave! Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Did I tell you about my new reading glasses? I can do a great "strict librarian" thing now...
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Storm is uncomfortable! Looks like now is a good time for...kittens!
Aaaawwwwwwwww! Cute overload.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Bad Stormy! Behave!
Over to the left! The left!
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Did I tell you about my new reading glasses? I can do a great "strict librarian" thing now...
*pinky*
Mmmm! Saucy!
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: And it's not like he's coming forward with it now to say "Hey, you know, Squicky's got a point."
I have supported you against kat in other arguments before. So have other members of sake. I believe you have a blind spot about this. I haven't in this one, because I was honestly hoping the two of you might be able to work it out. And because I think you're both partly at fault for the situation as it stands, so I don't particularly have a reason to "support" either of you.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Whereas it seems like all the members of sakeriver are over here in masse attacking me.
This is bullshit.
What you always seem unwilling to realize/acknowledge is that what the people you are referring to as a clique have in common is that they are personally emotionally invested in the community. We are the people who talk about our lives, in detail, repeatedly. We are the people who go to gatherings whenever we can, to get together in person. When people put more of themselves out there, it is natural that they will bond more than people who choose not to. The reason we "step in" when you and kat are going at it is that we don't like this sort of strife, and if we think we can relieve it, with a joke, like Noemon tried to do in this thread, or some other way, we will try to.
You've said you don't want to interact with Hatrack that way, and that's fine. But I really wish you'd get over the notion that those of us who do all vote in a block or something. We don't all always agree or get along with each other. We're not all out to get you. Most of us like you. The roots of whatever it is between you and kat started before I joined the forum, and I've long viewed it as some kind of weird anomaly that I'll never understand. kat and I do not always see eye-to-eye, and we've tangled before, here and elsewhere, although we've always seemed to work it out and stay friendly. Since I fit all of the criteria you seem to list for being part of kat's clique, I find it exceedingly irritating when you keep throwing around accusations about what that group of people does.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
*facepalm*
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I like you, too, even though you irritate me sometimes, and you can't stop me. And yes, I realize the irony of the attcking quote and my response, if that's what you're facepalming about.
On rereading my post, though, it comes across as harsher than I meant it. Squick, if youcould please keep in mind what you said recently in, I think it was a religion thread, about trying to be as non-offensive as you could be while still saying what you wanted to say, I would appreciate it.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Can you not just let it die?
Edit: The reason that I was facepalming is because the thread was almost dead. A whole page with just fluff.
On second thought, I don't know why I care. Who am I to ask you not to engage in fruitless discussion?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
ElJay,
quote: have supported you against kat in other arguments before. So have other members of sake. I believe you have a blind spot about this. I haven't in this one, because I was honestly hoping the two of you might be able to work it out. And because I think you're both partly at fault for the situation as it stands, so I don't particularly have a reason to "support" either of you.
Yes, you have. Where have I said otherwise? I'm sorry I brought sakeriver into this. I really don't know who all the members are, but I should have known that you were one.
---
Right now, I'm seeing a mass of people coming at me. There are also a few who are taking my part in some ways, and I do appreciate it. However, I don't believe I'm being treated fairly on the whole.
I don't like that kat can make posts like this without people commenting on it:
quote:Squicky, are you looking for an outpouring of public vindication of you and a unanimous condemnation of me? It's never, ever going to happen. That is never going to happen. People aren't like that and Hatrack isn't like that. BALDAR didn't get universal condemnation. You'll be waiting for forever, and you'll be miserable all the while.
It is not acceptable for you to appoint yourself as my personal monitor. Step down, kid. There are other people on the job. It isn't your job, four-year-old hurt notwithstanding.
Have you really been hurting about that for four years? I'm so sorry. I shouldn't have done it, and I apologize.
I also don't like that people basically seem to be telling me (from my perspective), it's your fault because you won't back down.
I am not the one keeping this going. I've only been responding to people for pages now. I've been very clear what resolution I'm fine with:
quote:For pete's sake, kat. It's really not that hard. Don't act petty and nasty. If you don't, you won't have a problem with me. Or if you do, you can easily bring up this thread and I'll be extremely ashamed and disgraced.
Do you think I'm not being honest about this? Do you think I am incapable of doing so? Do I come off as not honorable enough that what I'm saying in this wouldn't be a very bad thing for me?
I was and am still perfectly willing to leave it there.
---
quote:The reason we "step in" when you and kat are going at it is that we don't like this sort of strife, and if we think we can relieve it, with a joke, like Noemon tried to do in this thread, or some other way, we will try to.
I'll ask, in your opinion, was kat's characterization of boots's statement acceptible? Was her statement to me, coupled with her not acknowledging it? Do you think I would act differently for other people doing the same thing?
I don't get what I did wrong here, other than not just let these things go.
I do think my fault, whatever it is, is being focued on me while no one is even mentioning, to me, the more obvious faults that kat has displayed here and elsewhere*.
This doesn't feel fair to me and it seems to typify the common reaction (to which there are some exceptions) to these indications. I feel like, besides just going back through this thread, I'm going to need to go back through a bunch of other threads in order to get people to take what I am sayign seriously. I don't want to do that; I don't think anyone else wants to do that; but I don't know that I'll be treated fairly otherwise.
---
* edit: Which is not to say that if I did wrong it is justified by what kat did wrong. It's more like, I think I'm being treated as being completely unreasonable when I think there is justification for my behavior that is not being considered.
Also, I am being called on from many sides to justify my behavior. kat, well, from none. And this is long after I've given what I felt was my reasonable response that I reposted above and was willing to let this drop.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Edit: To Storm.
My apologies if my opinion doesn't fit your schedule. I was in meetings from 2 to 4:30 CST, so I wasn't able to respond before now. Since I feel, as I said, that Squicky was specifically condeming me, I don't feel like I'm out of line in wanting to respond to it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
ElJay, I never intended to condemn you. I'm sorry if you felt I was referring to you with my negative statements. As I said above, I made a mistake of including a reference to sakeriver in my posting. I was specifically thinking of you when I said that very few people call kat on anything.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
twinky,
quote:The thread has gone from being about Conservapedia to being about you and kat. So, yes, it did do so here.
This thread was kinda dead prior to the current round of the kat/me thing. Before that, while there was the kat/me thing, there was also an on-going conversation that I was participating in. That died out and I considered it basically over.
---
I'd reverse the damage thing. I think Cedrios did damage to the jatraquero clique. I never really cared about him and don't think he had all that much of an effect outside of you lot. On the other hand, Leto was directly responsible for driving off at least 5 promising posters as well as demonstrating a standard of behavior as acceptible on this forum that other peopel adopted in various degrees.
I'm not sure if this is a difference in perspective or one of how we define the forum.
---
I'm not sure, but is what you want me to do to just let things slide? If you want to go back through our interactions (which, yes, I know no one will do) you'll see that the only time I initiate things with kat is when she is acting poorly towards some else other than myself. And most of the time, it is her attacking me, which I only entertain when it is a part of the conversation, as opposed to, for example, calling me a loser from out of nowhere maybe a month ago.
I just get the feeling like I'm getting the "You're in trouble because you stood up to the bully." treatment. It's not that I'm wrong. It's that I'm making a fuss. Maybe that's just my perspective right now, which is probably not the clearest, but that's what I'm getting from what you said coupled with my experiences.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I don't like that kat can make posts like this without people commenting on it:
quote:Squicky, are you looking for an outpouring of public vindication of you and a unanimous condemnation of me? It's never, ever going to happen. That is never going to happen. People aren't like that and Hatrack isn't like that. BALDAR didn't get universal condemnation. You'll be waiting for forever, and you'll be miserable all the while.
It is not acceptable for you to appoint yourself as my personal monitor. Step down, kid. There are other people on the job. It isn't your job, four-year-old hurt notwithstanding.
Have you really been hurting about that for four years? I'm so sorry.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see what was so terrible about that post. I thought it was sort of condescending and snide, but not nearly objectionable enough for anyone to, well, object.
In your opinion, what was so bad about it?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
It was condescending and rude as part of her reconciliation attempt. It also ignored (I'm pretty sure deliberately) why I brought the issue up in favor of harping on something that kat thinks would make me look bad.
I thought it seriously indicated, at that point, that kat was not being genuine in her reconciliation attempt.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
And she is pretty sure you are not being genuine in yours. And I am pretty sure that if you would both assume the best intentions from each other, just this once it would go a long way toward ending this nonsense.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
dkw, Do you think that that was an appropriate post or one conducive to reconciliation?
I've been trying to be quite clear about my approach here. I'll quote it again.
quote:For pete's sake, kat. It's really not that hard. Don't act petty and nasty. If you don't, you won't have a problem with me. Or if you do, you can easily bring up this thread and I'll be extremely ashamed and disgraced.
kat has been very dishonest and has used artifice in the past. I think she is doing so again. But it doesn't matter to what my behavior is going to be. I'll hold to what I said there in either case. As far as I can tell, the kat and me part of this conversation is over, at least for now. I'm on the me versus a mess of other people now.
I think that was clearly an inappropriate statement and I would have felt better if someone had noted this.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:It was condescending and rude as part of her reconciliation attempt.
You made it very clear, very early, how any attempt at reconciliation that wasn't total capitulation on her part would be receieved.
Maybe that's why you're getting the vibe that people feel you're being unreasonable.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:I'm not sure, but is what you want me to do to just let things slide?
Yes.
quote:It's that I'm making a fuss.
It's that you make a fuss about this on a regular basis, invariably with kat, and that whenever you do it accomplishes nothing other than other than derailing perfectly good threads. It should be obvious that continuing to call kat on what you perceive to be poor behaviour, accurately so or otherwise, has no positive effect.
Similarly, people calling Leto on his behaviour in the past has had absolutely no effect. If it accomplishes nothing other than derailing threads and irritating other people, why bother doing it more than once or twice? Hell, once a year?
quote:If you want to go back through our interactions...
If you're seriously keen on me doing it, I will, but to be honest, this conversation is starting to piss me off. I imagine it shows. Let me explain why:
How do you think I feel about Lisa's posts on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? I can assure you that I feel much more strongly about it than you feel about kat's alleged viciousness, especially given that you also claim to be emotionally detached from the same. I take posts on that issue personally, sometimes deeply so -- consider that, on this forum, the claim has been made that an ethnic group of which I am a part does not exist. And yet, somehow, with one single exception since I decided to bow out, which is one instance in just about three years, I manage to refrain from getting involved, because the net result when I do tends to be negative, especially for me. If you're so damn uninvested, why do you feel compelled to continue harping on what is, quite frankly, an issue that by comparison is utterly devoid of significance?
I'm upset, and I'm sorry; I don't generally like to post when I'm upset, but I'm hoping that you'll see what I'm trying to say. And, as I've already said, this thread is the last (and, I think, first) time I'll address this issue.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Yes, you have. Where have I said otherwise? I'm sorry I brought sakeriver into this. I really don't know who all the members are, but I should have known that you were one.
It's not even that I'm a member of sake, although I am. You said people who consider themselves jatraqueras. That's me. Heck, I'm the one who had the t-shirts made. You've said people who are members of kat's "clique," and then listed a whole bunch of people whom I consider friends. Everytime you make a statement like "Boy I wish I was popular, so people would defend me" (paraphrased) it feels like it's aimed at me. I'm popular here. People defend me. Perhaps not as much as I used to be, but I'm certainly a member of the group of people you're talking about. So are a WHOLE lot of other people who have not been supporting kat over you, who you are undoubtedly alienating without even realizing it with the continued "clique" jabs. They are inaccurate.
quote: Right now, I'm seeing a mass of people coming at me. There are also a few who are taking my part in some ways, and I do appreciate it. However, I don't believe I'm being treated fairly on the whole.
I think Rakeesh's responses to you have been non-productive. I also notice he's been called on it. I think Storm has tried to divert the thread to fluff, because he likes kittens more than protracted arguments. Most other people I think are trying to find some resolution to this issue. Unfortunately, with so many people trying in so many different ways, I'm sure it comes across to you as a cacophony that is generally against you. I don't think that's what people intend. I think people are so fed up with the way you two interact that they're willing to try anything to it to stop.
quote:I don't like that kat can make posts like this without people commenting on it: (long quote snipped)
...
I also don't like that people basically seem to be telling me (from my perspective), it's your fault because you won't back down.
I think a big part of the problem is that you and kat speak different languages, and you really, really don't understand each other. What I think twinky was trying to say wasn't that it's your fault because you won't just ignore kat. What I think he was saying is that you should ignore kat because due to the weight of your history she will never, ever accept this kind of criticsm from you. At least, that's what I'm saying. You think you should keep doing it anyway, because otherwise observers will think her behavior is okay. I think that that is less harmful than observers thinking it's okay to hold personal vendettas against fellow forum members for years. And regardless of your statements to the contrary, that's what it looks like to the casual observer every time this catfight re-erupts.
I don't believe that you have an unhealthy personal obsession with kat. I don't think you're stalking her, and I bet that you would be flabbergasted that anyone would seriously consider that possibility based on your actions. But that's part of the emotionally invested/not emotionally invested in the forum divide I talked about in my last post. From one vantage point, it looks like a real concern. It's a vantage point I can see, but not one I hold. But you need to know that the vantage point exists, and that if you continue call kat on her actions every time you think she's out of line, you will be feeding it.
quote: I am not the one keeping this going. I've only been responding to people for pages now. I've been very clear what resolution I'm fine with:
quote:For pete's sake, kat. It's really not that hard. Don't act petty and nasty. If you don't, you won't have a problem with me. Or if you do, you can easily bring up this thread and I'll be extremely ashamed and disgraced.
Do you think I'm not being honest about this? Do you think I am incapable of doing so? Do I come off as not honorable enough that what I'm saying in this wouldn't be a very bad thing for me?
I think you're being honest about it, and I think that that statement is an agreement with kat's proposal of truce. Remember what I said about you two speaking different languages? I don't think* kat reads this the way you intend it. I think in her view, she's doing everything she can to offer an olive branch, and you're throwing it back in her face.
I also think her suggestions of rules, conditions, judges and exile are unnecessary and kind of silly. But she's throwing them in there because she thinks you're rejecting her olive branch, and she's trying desperately to get you to accept it, because she's taken to heart the increasingly vocal disapproval that's been surfacing lately of the two of your's feud. So she's getting a little wild, trying to find a way to get you to agree to try to end it, when in fact you already have.
quote:I'll ask, in your opinion, was kat's characterization of boots's statement acceptible?
Nope. But boots was still an active participant in the thread, and didn't need a knight errent. I'm sure you've noticed, she's not shy about standing up for herself when she feels she's been mischaracterized. If you hadn't gotten involved, the next time she came into the thread she would have corrected kat, kat probably would have apologized, (she did to me in a similar situation where she misunderstood me a couple of weeks ago,) and everything would have been fine.
As soon as you got involved, it became part of your ongoing spat, and kat was not going to apologize, period, because it was you asking for it.
quote:Was her statement to me, coupled with her not acknowledging it? Do you think I would act differently for other people doing the same thing?
No, and no. But, as I said, I believe the not acknowledging part was because of the fact you got involved. And, in this case, I think you got involved too soon. People misinterpret each other around here pretty frequently. For the most part, when someone comes back and sees how their post was taken, they clarify, the other person says "Oh, I see," and there's no problem. That is always the preferable route. Whenever a third party gets involved, things get more tense. For this reason, I try to never get involved unless/until the original two parties have had a chance to try to straighten things out, and are obviously having problems understanding each other.
quote:I don't get what I did wrong here, other than not just let these things go.
See above. Because you think kat never gets called on these things, you jump in too soon, making it look like you have a personal vendetta. If you gave people a chance to work it out on their own first, I think most of the problems would be solved without interferance. Plus, it would reduce your complaint about no one else calling kat on stuff. We don't because you almost always beat us to it. Most of us are waiting to see if interferance is really needed before getting involved**. You don't wait, so you're always first, and there's an unspoken rule about not dogpiling, so as soon as one person's said something most other people stay out of it until they see if the first person is going to be effective.
I've typed way more than I really had time for tonight, so I'm going to gloss over the rest of your post, sorry. Plus I started responding to this right after you posted it, and I'm sure there have been many other posts since then, although I hope ( ) that many people are waiting to see if my intervention is successful before they give it a try.
I don't think you need to go back through any threads in order to be taken seriously. I think most people are taking you a lot more seriously than you think they are, they just have different ideas than you about what sort of resolution to all this is both acceptable and possible. I'm sure you're right, though, that no one wants to go post hunting to prove any points. It takes a long time, it's not fun, and it rarely proves anything, anyway, because it just makes other people go post hunting themselves to prove you wrong.
--------
quote:I never intended to condemn you. I'm sorry if you felt I was referring to you with my negative statements.
That's nice to know. I hope you take my above point to heart and realize that there's probably a lot of other people out there who you didn't intend to condemn who also feel very condemned by your posts.
*I'm doing some guessing and projecting throughout this post about kat's feelings and motivations. I could be wildly off-base. But even if I am, I think that it would help for you to try looking at the situation as if I am 100% dead-on. You need to see a different perspective here than your own.
**Also, you can read "most people" to mean "me." Or possibly "me and all other right-minded people, because that's the way it flippin' should be."
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Squick, I agree completely with every word of ElJay's post, and hers is worded vastly better. If you haven't already, you don't need to bother reading my earlier post on the subject.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I certainly have nothing more to add. I think ElJay nailed it.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: [QB] Whereas it seems like all the members of sakeriver are over here in masse attacking me.
Bullshit.
MrSquicky, there are a lot of things that people DO get called on, all the time. For kat, for you, for me....we have all gone past civility on occasion when we are upset or feel persecuted.
The difference between you and kat at this point is that she has at least admitted that there have been times where she acted improperly and not treated you well.
You have been demeaning, insulting, patronizing, and self-righteous on more than one occasion.....Yet you fail to see ANYTHING at ALL that you have done wrong in continuing this feud with kat in the past 4 years?
I like you. I like reading most of your posts even when I disagree with you because they are well thought out and make some good points. Depending on the subject, I even at times seek your posts out, because you see things differently at times, and different is good, particularly when you are trying to broaden your own knowledge base on a given subject.
But there is no possible way a person as smart as you can not understand why anyone would be offended if they were spoken to in the the tone you use with kat.
You wouldn't put up with it from anyone speaking to you, regardless of if you were actually in the wrong or not. It isn't civil, or intelligent, or reasoned discourse. It comes across as nasty and vindictive, and does as much harm to this forum as anything kat has done, even if you refuse to recognize it.
Also, yes...I post at sakeriver. But before you use that to attack me, or this post, do yourself a favor.
Find quotes to back up, from either sakeriver or here at Hatrack, that proves that I have a particular friendship with kat. I don't. Not because I don't like her, but because we don't cross paths often in threads. I asked her about the BSA a few times, IIRC, and I do speak to her here and there, but I really don't know her at all other than a few random things.
Which is the same amount I know about you.
I honestly think I have posted more in response to your posts than to hers in the past 6 years. I like her, but don't know her well, so it isn't like I am out to defend a friends honor or anything.
Which is pretty much the way I feel about you.....so perhaps, rather than this being an attack on you because of sakeriver, people are commenting about your behavior because it is out of bounds, and you are currently acting poorly.
Mistakes have been made on BOTH sides of this grudge, or whatever you want to call it....but only one of you has admitted it so far.
[ March 22, 2007, 11:05 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name: Who was it that said something to the effect of 'behaving in a way that emphasizes taking the high road essentially defeats the purpose'? Was it a comedian? Someone who posts here? Both? I've seen less angst than this close discussions previously. Can we get some of this, please?
That would be Icarus.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
MrSquicky...I missed where you backed off of the whole "sake is against me" thing, and I am sorry. That pissed me off, because I couldn't remember ever taking up a fight against you at all, on this subject or any other.
Also, I respect a lot of people who have spoken up during this thread, and I felt the attack on them as "being against you"only because of their membership at another web site was disrespectful and misleading.
I will leave my post up, with minor editing, because I hate deleting posts, but I just wanted to let you know that I appreciated your clarification.
[ March 22, 2007, 11:38 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Hmmm...
<ignores gossip>
<waits for CT to get back to discussion from page 6>
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I haven't forgotten you, Tresopax. I am, however, at an extreme level of what I believe to be background hormonal witchiness. (I think I'm perimenopausal.) This is probably why I was on edge with you, and it should pass in the next few days.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Because I didn't mean that at all. I just meant that complaining because someone uses one over the other or asserting that if one doesn't use BC and AD it shows that they have some sort of atheist agenda (or, conversely, that not using BCE and CE means that they have a conservative religious agenda) shows, oh, a certain lack of maturity.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)