Peanut Gallery for DarkBishop vs. Pittsburghjoe

[TheRedneckProfessor]

@WalterP,

 

To begin with, no one has the right to be here on this website.  Not yourself, not either of the joes, not even the Prof thy Mod.  This is a personal, privately owned and operated website and we are all granted the privilege of posting here.  Some of us have the privilege of taking other people's privileges away; but there is only one person who has the right to be here.  In him we live, and move, and have our being... as online avatars.

 

Secondly, we have always welcomed christians into our forums, even those with insane ideas; and we will continue to do so in future.  In contrast to most christian forum-based websites, this shows members and guests a fair and balanced approach to religion and all arguments therein.  The moderation team is largely responsible for the content posted here, and, by extension, for the lurkers and newbies who may be impacted.  We take this responsibility very seriously; and deliberate, often with vigor, over the various directions this sometimes unwieldy community takes.  This is especially true in cases such as the aforementioned joes.

 

Both joes enjoyed the time and space to deliver their respective messages, only to have every flaw in their logic put on display for all to see.  They were given a larger spotlight than any other in precedent, and they both blew it for themselves and their faith.  The lurkers who genuinely seek to get out of christianity will not be swayed by the likes of joe, any more than they would by ordinaryclay or thumbelina.  The lurkers who would be swayed are not likely to be at a place where we can help them; and we may do more damage by trying before they are ready.  We cannot help them all; all we can do is each play our respective roles and play them to the fullest of our ability.  The chips will land where they fall.

 

This website has quietly, but diligently, plodded onward over the years; and, in my short tenure here, has handled the deaths of prominent members, the relapse of seemingly solid deconverts, and even internal strife and division stemmed from political, social, and economic differences completely unrelated to the primary purpose of helping former christians leave their baggage behind.  We've managed worse than either joe could wreak; and will continue to do so.  Because the collective strength of this community is born from the individual strengths of members who have overcome abuse, fear, emotional instability, addictions, and pain inconceivable to those inexperienced in it.

 

Have a good day, 

John

[◊ Weezer ◊]

2 hours ago, WalterP said:

 

So, how can we balance the right of the Joe's (Mello & Pittsburgh) to post here against protecting the lurkers from them.

 

I'm not sure lurkers need protection.  To me the thinking of some of the "Joes" that come here are obviously "schizophrenic", but honest, and some are sneaky trolls.  Sometimes it takes a while to sort out which is which.  In either case, trying to reason with them is an exercise in futility, and I'm not sure what the overall effect of the whack-a-christian attitude has.  Some lurkers may be attracted to it, and some may see it as sadistic and decide to leave.  But if lurkers have made the effort to come here, I'm not sure they need protection.  Yes, there may be some learning that takes place for some, but I'm not sure the overall effect is in the forums best interest. 

[LogicalFallacy]

2 hours ago, WalterP said:

vulnerable and fragile lurkers

 

You don't think calling potential members "vulnerable and fragile" would be more off putting Walter? Some of these folk are the bravest, toughest people I've met. Calling them fragile seems a bit condescending.

 

I for one fail to see how a person who might be considering leaving Christianity would suddenly decide not to register because they read Joe or BroMario. If anything it should serve to show that the religious can be utterly deluded. I know of at least one testimony from someone that read Joe's posts and it helped them come free of Christianity.

 

The only real issue as I see it is the ability of religious members to be able to target members via PM away from public scrutiny. Not sure how we'd get around this problem.

[midniterider]

1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

You don't think calling potential members "vulnerable and fragile" would be more off putting Walter? Some of these folk are the bravest, toughest people I've met. Calling them fragile seems a bit condescending.

 

I for one fail to see how a person who might be considering leaving Christianity would suddenly decide not to register because they read Joe or BroMario. If anything it should serve to show that the religious can be utterly deluded. I know of at least one testimony from someone that read Joe's posts and it helped them come free of Christianity.

 

The only real issue as I see it is the ability of religious members to be able to target members via PM away from public scrutiny. Not sure how we'd get around this problem.

 

Hey, I'm fragile, dammit.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

The only real issue as I see it is the ability of religious members to be able to target members via PM away from public scrutiny. Not sure how we'd get around this problem

 

Maybe send a message to new comers warning them of the possibility they could be targeted by religious proselytizing and to let an admin know if they are getting harassed. Or put a warning add that pops up every so often on people's browsers warning them of the possibility. 

[WalterP]

What the hell is happening here?

 

Prof,

 

If you go back and re-read my dialogue with Josh about my concerns you'll see that at no point have I questioned anything about the way this website is run.  My interactions with Josh were at all times polite, courteous and driven by a genuine concern for the ongoing mental and emotional wellbeing of current and future members.  

 

From that, does it sound much like I'm trying to undermine Webmaster Dave, you or any of the Moderators?  That I'm questioning anything about anyone's privileges or rights?  That I want to do anything other than serve and help this forum in any way that I can?

 

Also, is there anything about the way I usually conduct myself here that suggests that I'm anything other than a team player?  Surely not.  Just about everything I post here is for the betterment of others.  For the benefit of the whole forum.  For the immediate comfort and reassurance of those members who are still troubled by the hold Christianity has over them.  You have been witness to this.  

 

Let me restate my position.

 

At no point did I directly or indirectly claim, infer or imply anything about who does or does not have a right to be in this forum.  That is something which was not present in any of my posts, either openly or covertly. 

 

Prof, clearly you have misread the content and intent of my posts.  This is upsetting and worrying, but I hope that we can work out the problem between us.

 

Thank you, Walter.

 

 

 

 

[WalterP]

3 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

You don't think calling potential members "vulnerable and fragile" would be more off putting Walter? Some of these folk are the bravest, toughest people I've met. Calling them fragile seems a bit condescending.

 

I for one fail to see how a person who might be considering leaving Christianity would suddenly decide not to register because they read Joe or BroMario. If anything it should serve to show that the religious can be utterly deluded. I know of at least one testimony from someone that read Joe's posts and it helped them come free of Christianity.

 

The only real issue as I see it is the ability of religious members to be able to target members via PM away from public scrutiny. Not sure how we'd get around this problem.

 

No, LogicalFallacy.

 

Like the Prof, you've misread the both the content and intent of my words.  My concern is genuine, but you seem to have put your own spin on my words, implying something that was never present in my mind.

 

Just look at at my recent interactions with Brothermario, PittsburghJoe and Edgarcito.  Do you see any sign or hint of condescension?  A little scorn at their incoherence perhaps, but I'm always at pains to conduct myself politely and courteously.  Does that sound like someone who would treat potential members with condescension?  Or even think about them in that way?

 

Ok, if I have misread or misjudged anything in this thread then I'm clearly at fault and I unreservedly apologize for it.

 

But I do think that there is a serious misunderstanding between us and we should both work to resolve it.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Walt,

 

Once, when I lived in Northern Ireland, I really wanted a proper fry for breakfast; but only had enough coin to cover McDonald's.  So, to Mickey D's I went.  Now, I'd been there long enough to know the differences in meanings between certain words in English as we proper Southern folk speak it,  and the English of the Queen.  I had even picked up a fair amount of Ulster slang and could render a passable accent, when drunk enough.  

 

Nevertheless, as soon as I passed under the golden arches and entered the establishment, I forgot myself completely, along with the entire lexicon of local color.  Instead, I bellied up to the counter, loud as an American, and with the unmistakable drawl of a Southern Gentleman, I pronounced the following syllables, as though they were the most important utterances ever to cross human vocal chords: "Let me get one of them there bacon, egg, and cheese biscuits, please."

 

The girl at the till looked no older than 18.  But she was a quick-witted Belfast lass.  Without so much as a batted lash, she looked dead at me and said, "Right, the only biscuits we have come with the kids meal; and they've no bacon on them whatever.  So they don't."

 

All that to say, it is entirely possible for an English speaker from the America to miscommunicate with an English speaker from the U.K.  I'm not certain that is what has happened here; but I don't think it really matters.  We both made valid points; and I'm sure we both stand behind them.  I feel there is enough mutual respect here that this need not come between us.  With that said, let us discuss it no further.

 

Instead, let's focus our attention on the way those poxy Kiwis murder our beloved common tongue.

[◊ Krowb ◊]

17 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Instead, let's focus our attention on the way those poxy Kiwis murder our beloved common tongue.

 

I can't believe you let the rest of the Irish off the hook.  There've been times I couldn't understand a word they were saying.  Those from Carrick in particular.

[TABA]

11 minutes ago, Krowb said:

 

I can't believe you let the rest of the Irish off the hook.  There've been times I couldn't understand a word they were saying.  Those from Carrick in particular.

 

Oh yeah?  Well, go bhfaghaine bás gan an sagart!

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

1 minute ago, TABA said:

 

Oh yeah?  Well, go bhfaghaine bás gan an sagart!

 

WTF? translation please lmao!!

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

37 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Right, the only biscuits we have come with the kids meal; and they've no bacon on them whatever.  So they don't."

So what is a biscuit in Ireland prof?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

17 minutes ago, Krowb said:

 

I can't believe you let the rest of the Irish off the hook.  There've been times I couldn't understand a word they were saying.  Those from Carrick in particular.

Ach, aye, me auld mucker, ha'e ye heard 'em'uns from Cookstown?   

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

So what is a biscuit in Ireland prof?

It's what proper English speakers call a "cookie," though over there, they're often more along the lines of a Twix or Kit-Kat.

[WalterP]

Sounds good to me, Professor. 

 

Btw, I'm not from London, but if pushed I can do a half decent Victorian-Era Cockney accent, complete with some rhyming slang.

 

"Cor!  Strewff, guv'nor.  I can ardly Adam n' Eve it.  A Yank and a bleedin' Kiwi on me case and ain't dun nuffin'!  Loada jumped up rozzers with pointy little eads!"

 

Dick Van Dyke would be proud.

 

 

 

[TABA]

12 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

So what is a biscuit in Ireland prof?

 

[WalterP]

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/jaffa-cakes-national-biscuit-day-2019-debate-twitter-yougov-poll-a8934851.html

 

Q.  When is a biscuit, not a biscuit?

 

A.  When its a cake.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

The only other time I experienced a linguistic faux pas was the train incident.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

43 minutes ago, Krowb said:

 

I can't believe you let the rest of the Irish off the hook.  There've been times I couldn't understand a word they were saying.  Those from Carrick in particular.

Which Carrick, though?

[◊ Krowb ◊]

2 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Which Carrick, though?

 

In Donegal county.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

13 minutes ago, Krowb said:

 

In Donegal county.

Ah.  I was clear across the other side of the country.  Carrickfergus, County Antrim.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Maybe we should rename this thread the "Peanut Galway."

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

If a biscuit is a cake. Then what do they call a biscuit?

[LogicalFallacy]

3 hours ago, WalterP said:

 

No, LogicalFallacy.

 

Like the Prof, you've misread the both the content and intent of my words.  My concern is genuine, but you seem to have put your own spin on my words, implying something that was never present in my mind.

 

Just look at at my recent interactions with Brothermario, PittsburghJoe and Edgarcito.  Do you see any sign or hint of condescension?  A little scorn at their incoherence perhaps, but I'm always at pains to conduct myself politely and courteously.  Does that sound like someone who would treat potential members with condescension?  Or even think about them in that way?

 

Oh I'm sure your concern is genuine, if somewhat misplaced imo. I was pointing out the irony that in your concern for the "vulnerable and fragile" lurkers who may be put off by reading Joe and BroMario you may put them off yourself by labeling them "vulnerable and fragile". This is not a criticism of your concern, but a suggestion that perhaps we need to be careful in how we word our phrases least we do the very thing we are trying to prevent. I include the full quote in context so people can see what I'm talking about:

 

10 hours ago, WalterP said:

As you know I'm concerned about the following scenario.  Before people register here they usually spend some time lurking and carefully reading what's on offer here.  This means that they can read everything and anything posted by people like Brothermario and PittsburghJoe.  As I mentioned before, it would be both tragic and bitterly ironic if these vulnerable and fragile lurkers were deflected from registering by what they read from these bozos.  We want the lurkers to make the next step and register here so that they can share and get help, right?

 

(Emphasis mine)

 

 

10 hours ago, WalterP said:

So, how can we balance the right of the Joe's (Mello & Pittsburgh) to post here against protecting the lurkers from them?

 

Maybe I'm obtuse. Again why do we need to protect lurkers? I have already mentioned my only concern is the ability for religious members to send unsolicited PM's to other members. Some people do struggle with leaving religion, this is very true, but I don't think we can wrap them in cotton wool. I would consider someone like Braxton Hunter etc to be more of a threat to lurkers as while they are intelligent debaters, they also know their Biblical stuff and so would be able to appeal to people struggling with their faith.

 

As for @TheRedneckProfessor accusation that Kiwi's murder the mother tongue - clearly you have not heard the deranged ramblings of folks in the US claiming to be speaking "English". Have you seen how you spell words? You Americans put z's in everything! For the love of the Queen, may she reign forever!

[webmdave]

Perhaps a disclaimer on select pages of the site. Something like NSFHSP.