quote:In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who enters an established community such as an online discussion forum and intentionally tries to cause disruption, often in the form of posting messages that are inflammatory, insulting, incorrect, inaccurate, absurd, or off-topic, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others.
I have not done this. I joined hatrack long before I became a moderately "active" poster [so intent is moot].
It's not trolling, mr_porteiro_head, so apparently you don't know what it is. What I am doing, is expressing strong disagreement with the content of some posts. And that, I believe is the point of discussion.
I will not stand by, and tolerate racist, chauvinist or anti-social remarks. If the "rules of the board" do not allow fair and open discussion, then it [the board] does not serve its purpose.
However, since none of my posts have censured by the moderators, so I must presume that I have not violated the terms of use.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I will not stand by, and tolerate racist, chauvinist or anti-social remarks.
It seems to me that the sarcastic, condescending comments you make are pretty darn anti-social and inhibiting of open discussion.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, since none of my posts have censured by the moderators, so I must presume that I have not violated the terms of use.
That's not exactly a safe presumption. The moderator can't be here at all times or read all threads, so the forum is to a degree self-moderating.
I found your post at the top of this page to be classless, though classlessness isn't against the TOS specifically. Your other posts in this thread have been inconsiderate at best, but you're far from the worst offender in that arena, too. Your posts run afoul of the "or disparage others for their beliefs," I think, but again you're far from the worst. There's a gray area between expressing disbelief or even distaste for another's beliefs and mocking them. You're leaning toward the latter, so perhaps you could pull it back a bit.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The accountability is according to the moderater. You aren't the first to not like that, but there it is.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, I shorthanded it -- "You also agree that you will not use this forum to try to convert people to your own religious beliefs, or to disparage others for their own religious beliefs." As to your question, I'd ask that you try to find some middle-ground between disparaging and unaccountability.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paraphrased -- If wanting someone to cut your penis off and feed it to you is not insanity, then there is no meaningful definition for the word.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
(To the best of my recollection. I could be conflating two different posts, but I don't think I am.)
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the desire to be castrated, then eat your own severed penis, then be stabbed to death and eaten is not insane, then there is no meaningful definition of that word.
posted
actually what just happened here [referring to a post that was made a considerable time ago, and is only likely to be remembered by "veterans"] is also called trolling.
aah the irony :)
Posts: 142 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:actually what just happened here [referring to a post that was made a considerable time ago, and is only likely to be remembered by "veterans"] is also called trolling.
I have never heard that word used that way.
---
Abhi, what was the purpose of your earlier comments, if not to express your opinion about polygamy?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:actually what just happened here [referring to a post that was made a considerable time ago, and is only likely to be remembered by "veterans"] is also called trolling.
No, it's not.
But I don't think you're necessarily deliberately trolling. You're expressing your disgust with a practice in very strong terms, but not -- IMO -- to get a deliberate rise out of people. I don't think you fully realize how offensive your approaches have been.
Lots of people on this site think polygamy is generally (or always) a bad thing. Most of them are able to express this more constructively. Perhaps you should take the advice of the mod and tone it down a bit.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:actually what just happened here [referring to a post that was made a considerable time ago, and is only likely to be remembered by "veterans"] is also called trolling.
I have never heard that word used that way.
---
Abhi, what was the purpose of your earlier comments, if not to express your opinion about polygamy?
Google "trolling"
The purpose of my comment was to question taking something at face value, and idolizing at without questioning the source of the information, and investigating the truth of the matter.
The poster had stated that his "heroes" were the people who were persecuted because they followed what "is still recorded as God's revelations"
These recordings, while one may believe in them, cannot be considered common knowledge, or even "fact" given that the only source relies on faith. While there is nothing wrong with faith inherently, you should be able to rationalize why you believe in something... which doesnt seem to be the case here, unless we want to desert the scientific method and return to the middle ages.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Dude. Some of us have been on the Internet since before both Google and Wikipedia.
-------
I think you're skipping an important step. Occasional believes that the Mormon church is "true," and therefore that its account of God's revelations is true. Your assumption here is that he has come to the conclusion that the Mormon church is true for irrational reasons.
But he may well have concluded that the Mormon church is true for a variety of reasons, both rational and irrational. While he puts his faith in the church and thus accepts their doctrines, it's enormously disrespectful to assume that he has faith in the church for reasons he cannot rationalize.
After all, you generally trust what your science professors told you; you didn't go out and test each statement for truth individually. Once you had a reason to believe those professors, you generally bought into the assumption that what they told you was broadly correct.
It's not possible to test every statement from every source for truth. Occasional has chosen to trust the LDS church as a source for truth, probably for very good reasons. Who are you to say otherwise?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
In addition to what Tom said so well, let me also point out that your oblique criticisms of Occasional didn't even come close to communicating what you were trying to say.
It wasn't a turn of phrase when I said that I couldn't tell what you were doing if it wasn't trolling. I honestly couldn't parse any coherent message out of your posts, but I also wasn't confident that you were trolling for a reaction.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Magson: My family tree includes both polygamists and slave owners. And yet somehow, I can't find myself thinking it has any bearing at all on who I am or what I believe about polygamy or slavery.
Mine contains polygamist slave owners, so there.
Seriously, as a non-Mormon, this is so far off the radar that it must be a stealth bomber.
Yeah, I should have mentioned the polygamist slave-owners too -- and in Utah, no less (yes, Utah was a "slave territory" before the Civil War. . )
A lot more polygamists than slave-owners, though. So far as I can tell, the slave-owners were all polygamists, though. Admittedly I've not searched very hard. Family history actually bores me to tears.
Posts: 1323 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be honest I really didn't care what Abhi said about what I said. His reaction only showed a dislike for polygamy - not an unusual position. I pretty much ignored him from the get go. My comments were more toward those who come from the same faith background as myself.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which is why I agreed-- if you believe that polygamy was revelation from God, you should be proud of those who practiced it despite adversity. That makes sense to me, and the "if" is what makes it make sense. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder why there is no thread about Bigamy being a prominent feature of Obamma's family tree.
Posts: 231 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, is there proof of that? I have heard it more as rumors than anything. Second, because if that is the case there hasn't been any major news story printed about it to make it relevant.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Which is why I agreed-- if you believe that polygamy was revelation from God, you should be proud of those who practiced it despite adversity. That makes sense to me, and the "if" is what makes it make sense. :)
if polygamy had been a revelation from God, it would make me question the credibility of my sources of God's revelations and/or God [thus the Niezche article].
I was raised by a very religious mother, and I have always been very religious myself, but not questioning what religious texts tell us to do is extremely problematic.
The last time when the world thought it was a good idea, we were in the dark ages... thankfully people like Da Vinci asked questions and brought us into the light.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I was raised by a very religious mother, and I have always been very religious myself, but not questioning what religious texts tell us to do is extremely problematic.
The last time when the world thought it was a good idea, we were in the dark ages... thankfully people like Da Vinci asked questions and brought us into the light.
There's an assumption in here that if someone is questionable, and is done anyway, then it was not questioned. This assumption is unwarranted.
Still, it's nice of you to subtly label your opponents as backwards-thinking Dark Ages types...and yourself to a genius such as DaVinci. Not presumptuous at all, really.
And you know, the Dark Ages weren't some static era of religious intolerance.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You don't know that no one questioned it. If you think that, you are wildly, extremely, breathtakingly mistaken.
Wrap your head around the fact that thoughtful people consider concepts carefully and prayerfully and then come to a different conclusion than you do.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is a matter of public record that Obamma's dad was married when he mover to Hawaii, married there, and then returned home and married again. All without the inconvenience of divorce. Cool huh? It was on the G Gordan Liddy Show yesterday. He was reading it off the wire.
posted
Well seeing as how his father was what I would call "an inactive Muslim." Obama converted to protestantism, and therefore almost certainly has no reason to champion the cause of polygamy. Since the LDS church is also an opponent of polygamy currently it stands to reason that neither Romney or Obama have any sort of pro polygamist agenda.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obama's dad divorced his mother and left Obama's life when Obama was two. Even still, the press has seized upon the fact that Obama's dad was Muslim, even if inactive and that while Obama lived in Indonesia he briefly attended a Muslim school (as well as a Catholic one which they ignore). Conspiracy theories abound. I don't think the press is attacking Romney moreso than others. To most Americans, polygamy is a novelty and they have a vague knowledge that Mormons are somehow associated with it. Far from attacking, I would find it shocking if this issue didn't come up.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it only fair to point out that polygamy played a prominent part in Jesus Christ's family tree, too. King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. (See 1 Kings 11:3.)
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
One can be simultaneously "well pleased" with being descended from polygamists who were operating under prophetic aegis and confess the wrongdoing of polygamist ancestors who defied the will of God and the law of the land.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
From the previous page mentioning Bush. If you go far enough back in his lineage, he shares a common ancestor with John Kerry.
As for Romney, this is proof that there IS no good news to tell on him, or that news agencies are being lazy, if this is the best they can come up with. It's absolutely not news. If you go back far enough in anyone's history you can find a manner of crazy stuff. I have pirates in my family, whooptie doo. Sins of the fathers should NOT be visited on the son. Ridiculous story that I hope will pass out of the collective conciousness within days.
The only reason someone writes and prints a story like that is to try and highlight the differences between Romney and his opponents. It's a very subtle attack, not meant to go after him directly, but it highlights what makes him different from the mainstream, and different is often scary, different is often unelectable. It's a cheap shot.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, if we consider the torah [OT] to be the literal truth, we all eventually go back to Adam and Eve... and there must've been incest if everyone comes from there: Adam - Eve Adam-eve children
Where would the next generation come from if it were not from incest? Or did I miss something critical Genesis?
edited to add "literal" before truth as a clarification of my argument.
posted
Things can be true without being literal, or complete in all details. For example, you can believe that the Lord was King David's shepherd (Psalm 23) without thinking David was a wooly quadruped. Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
