The Oldiesfreak Deluge of Absurdity, Ignorance, and Bad Posts III

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Emigrate... and I'm serious about that one

Is there something wrong with the field?

I'm guessing it's because he's a loyalist.

What an awful thing to say about someone.

I would take it as a compliment. ;o

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm not sure how our esteemed and admired brother memphis managed to pack so much Deluge-worthy material into such a short post, but he did. That's our memphis!

Religion, by definition, is idiotic psychological abuse. We're all sinners in the hands of an angry God.

Not only is it (obviously, to anybody not going out of their way to be disingenuous or simply bigoted or both) a laughably puerile understanding of religion, it's a laughably puerile understanding even of Jonathan Edwards!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Everyone is good at something, and he truly excels at being a cretin.

[afleitch]

I'm not sure how our esteemed and admired brother memphis managed to pack so much Deluge-worthy material into such a short post, but he did. That's our memphis!

Religion, by definition, is idiotic psychological abuse. We're all sinners in the hands of an angry God.

Not only is it (obviously, to anybody not going out of their way to be disingenuous or simply bigoted or both) a laughably puerile understanding of religion, it's a laughably puerile understanding even of Jonathan Edwards!

Ah ha ah ha ah ha (snort) a ha.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm not sure how our esteemed and admired brother memphis managed to pack so much Deluge-worthy material into such a short post, but he did. That's our memphis!

Religion, by definition, is idiotic psychological abuse. We're all sinners in the hands of an angry God.

Not only is it (obviously, to anybody not going out of their way to be disingenuous or simply bigoted or both) a laughably puerile understanding of religion, it's a laughably puerile understanding even of Jonathan Edwards!

Ah ha ah ha ah ha (snort) a ha.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to indicate.

An understanding of Jonathan Edwards that seems to be limited to the title and general gist of his most famous sermon is, in fact, a puerile one.

[afleitch]

I'm not sure how our esteemed and admired brother memphis managed to pack so much Deluge-worthy material into such a short post, but he did. That's our memphis!

Religion, by definition, is idiotic psychological abuse. We're all sinners in the hands of an angry God.

Not only is it (obviously, to anybody not going out of their way to be disingenuous or simply bigoted or both) a laughably puerile understanding of religion, it's a laughably puerile understanding even of Jonathan Edwards!

Ah ha ah ha ah ha (snort) a ha.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to indicate.

An understanding of Jonathan Edwards that seems to be limited to the title and general gist of his most famous sermon is, in fact, a puerile one.
[/quote

How much of an insufferable queen you can be in your catty and acerbic take downs of posters who are perhaps not so agile in defending themselves.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm not sure how our esteemed and admired brother memphis managed to pack so much Deluge-worthy material into such a short post, but he did. That's our memphis!

Religion, by definition, is idiotic psychological abuse. We're all sinners in the hands of an angry God.

Not only is it (obviously, to anybody not going out of their way to be disingenuous or simply bigoted or both) a laughably puerile understanding of religion, it's a laughably puerile understanding even of Jonathan Edwards!

Ah ha ah ha ah ha (snort) a ha.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to indicate.

An understanding of Jonathan Edwards that seems to be limited to the title and general gist of his most famous sermon is, in fact, a puerile one.

How much of an insufferable queen you can be in your catty and acerbic take downs of posters who are perhaps not so agile in defending themselves.

Oh. In that case, fair point. I can't really deny that.

[Zanas]

Re: The GOP

I mean, they're close. They're essentially one of those far-right populist parties that win about 10% of the vote in most European countries.

Well this is true. I don't see where the GOP as it is could poll more than 10% in Europe, except maybe Poland.

[afleitch]

I'm not sure how our esteemed and admired brother memphis managed to pack so much Deluge-worthy material into such a short post, but he did. That's our memphis!

Religion, by definition, is idiotic psychological abuse. We're all sinners in the hands of an angry God.

Not only is it (obviously, to anybody not going out of their way to be disingenuous or simply bigoted or both) a laughably puerile understanding of religion, it's a laughably puerile understanding even of Jonathan Edwards!

Ah ha ah ha ah ha (snort) a ha.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to indicate.

An understanding of Jonathan Edwards that seems to be limited to the title and general gist of his most famous sermon is, in fact, a puerile one.

How much of an insufferable queen you can be in your catty and acerbic take downs of posters who are perhaps not so agile in defending themselves.

Oh. In that case, fair point. I can't really deny that.

What would be worrying is if you actually liked it.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Re: The GOP

I mean, they're close. They're essentially one of those far-right populist parties that win about 10% of the vote in most European countries.

Well this is true. I don't see where the GOP as it is could poll more than 10% in Europe, except maybe Poland.

You truly underestimate other Eastern European contries.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm not sure how our esteemed and admired brother memphis managed to pack so much Deluge-worthy material into such a short post, but he did. That's our memphis!

Religion, by definition, is idiotic psychological abuse. We're all sinners in the hands of an angry God.

Not only is it (obviously, to anybody not going out of their way to be disingenuous or simply bigoted or both) a laughably puerile understanding of religion, it's a laughably puerile understanding even of Jonathan Edwards!

Ah ha ah ha ah ha (snort) a ha.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to indicate.

An understanding of Jonathan Edwards that seems to be limited to the title and general gist of his most famous sermon is, in fact, a puerile one.

How much of an insufferable queen you can be in your catty and acerbic take downs of posters who are perhaps not so agile in defending themselves.

Oh. In that case, fair point. I can't really deny that.

What would be worrying is if you actually liked it.

I could take or leave that part of my personality, to be honest, although the fact that other people tend not to like it very much inclines me towards 'leave', if I were better at exercising self-control over these things.

[patrick1]

Random observation on the above: Atlas Forum, the guy, I find a lot like the pony tailed dude from Good Will Hunting. There is a tendency to take esoteric bits of information, treat it like the most elementary knowledge and then belittle those who did not know it. The overall hubris may even be more off putting about the place to females than the presumed misogyny. 

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

This polls says two things. First is that Jindal is so liked in Louisiana that the voters don't want to see him in any other position other than their governor. Second is that Hillary Clinton matches up pretty well against Republicans without ads tying her to Obama.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Random observation on the above: Atlas Forum, the guy, I find a lot like the pony tailed dude from Good Will Hunting. There is a tendency to take esoteric bits of information, treat it like the most elementary knowledge and then belittle those who did not know it. The overall hubris may even be more off putting about the place to females than the presumed misogyny. 

It's not so much that I think that familiarity with the thought of Jonathan Edwards is or should be elementary knowledge as that taking the title and gist of 'Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God' and using it, independent of context, to convey some sort of Salient Point about American Christianity is a specific pet peeve of mine, but yeah, I think you're right about this, and I certainly wouldn't call myself 'part of the solution' (although I'm not sure I'd agree that women as a class are a group that this alienates necessarily more than others).

[Velasco]

Re: The GOP

I mean, they're close. They're essentially one of those far-right populist parties that win about 10% of the vote in most European countries.

Well this is true. I don't see where the GOP as it is could poll more than 10% in Europe, except maybe Poland.

You truly underestimate other Eastern European contries.

And Central (Hungary), Western and maybe Southern. The far right populists are in honeymoon in several countries.

[patrick1]

Random observation on the above: Atlas Forum, the guy, I find a lot like the pony tailed dude from Good Will Hunting. There is a tendency to take esoteric bits of information, treat it like the most elementary knowledge and then belittle those who did not know it. The overall hubris may even be more off putting about the place to females than the presumed misogyny. 

It's not so much that I think that familiarity with the thought of Jonathan Edwards is or should be elementary knowledge as that taking the title and gist of 'Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God' and using it, independent of context, to convey some sort of Salient Point about American Christianity is a specific pet peeve of mine, but yeah, I think you're right about this, and I certainly wouldn't call myself 'part of the solution' (although I'm not sure I'd agree that women as a class are a group that this alienates necessarily more than others).

Broad generalization,obviously, since life doesn't work on a binary, but I think women are more consensus driven. I should also note the tenor of your posts aren't unique really, we all/most do it. In atlas terms, Im not sure you would even make the medal stand. Hashemite is my even money favorite for gold. That young man gets downright volcanic.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Re: The GOP

I mean, they're close. They're essentially one of those far-right populist parties that win about 10% of the vote in most European countries.

Well this is true. I don't see where the GOP as it is could poll more than 10% in Europe, except maybe Poland.

You truly underestimate other Eastern European contries.

And Central (Hungary), Western and maybe Southern. The far right populists are in honeymoon in several countries.

Still, given Obama's general popularity (at least before the NSA leak) and anti-Republican (especially anti-Bush) attitudes in Europe, even after a campaign season I suspect Obama would win every country in Europe except perhaps Georgia if you count that as European. Albania, Kosovo (if you count it as a country), and Poland might be among Obama's flimsier victories.

[Velasco]

Regarding to GOP Kal is right suggesting it would have chances in Eastern Europe. Aside from Poland, I'm thinking in Hungary, Czech or Baltic republics. And Georgia, sure, if the country belongs to the "Western Civilization" . I'm totally sure that GOP might get more than 10%, but still might lose in most places.  I'm not sure if all the far right populists would vote Republican in all cases and in all countries. Many voters of traditional conservatives parties in Western Europe would vote Democratic. At least that's true in my country.

[DC Al Fine]

Random observation on the above: Atlas Forum, the guy, I find a lot like the pony tailed dude from Good Will Hunting. There is a tendency to take esoteric bits of information, treat it like the most elementary knowledge and then belittle those who did not know it. The overall hubris may even be more off putting about the place to females than the presumed misogyny.  

It's not so much that I think that familiarity with the thought of Jonathan Edwards is or should be elementary knowledge as that taking the title and gist of 'Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God' and using it, independent of context, to convey some sort of Salient Point about American Christianity is a specific pet peeve of mine, but yeah, I think you're right about this, and I certainly wouldn't call myself 'part of the solution' (although I'm not sure I'd agree that women as a class are a group that this alienates necessarily more than others).

As much as Nathan & others do this, in this case I think it is justified. Making an inflammatory statement like "religion is abuse" and then expecting kid gloves is absurd. Now if someone (say a hypothetical girl) had made the Jonathan Edwards comment as part of a coherent and polite argument and we acted the same way, then yes we'd be jerks for being snide about it.

[patrick1]

Random observation on the above: Atlas Forum, the guy, I find a lot like the pony tailed dude from Good Will Hunting. There is a tendency to take esoteric bits of information, treat it like the most elementary knowledge and then belittle those who did not know it. The overall hubris may even be more off putting about the place to females than the presumed misogyny.  

It's not so much that I think that familiarity with the thought of Jonathan Edwards is or should be elementary knowledge as that taking the title and gist of 'Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God' and using it, independent of context, to convey some sort of Salient Point about American Christianity is a specific pet peeve of mine, but yeah, I think you're right about this, and I certainly wouldn't call myself 'part of the solution' (although I'm not sure I'd agree that women as a class are a group that this alienates necessarily more than others).

As much as Nathan & others do this, in this case I think it is justified. Making an inflammatory statement like "religion is abuse" and then expecting kid gloves is absurd. Now if someone (say a hypothetical girl) had made the Jonathan Edwards comment as part of a coherent and polite argument and we acted the same way, then yes we'd be jerks for being snide about it.

My main observation is about forum culture in general and not merits. Frequently the arguments are two sides of the same coin.  Below is how I see many forum topics breaking down
A. inflammatory, iron clad declaration with supporting reference
B. OMFG, you are an idiot and here is why you are an idiot. Only utter moron would>> proceed to attack interpretation/knowledge of said reference
c. No, you.
d. Forum firing squad lines up in a circle.
e. rinse and repeat

This doesnt really bother me- I have been here near 10 years now. I continue to read here because there are bright people with informative, well reasoned insights. But it is a sharp elbows, acerbic crowd. And really I'm just a spit ballin.

[afleitch]

Random observation on the above: Atlas Forum, the guy, I find a lot like the pony tailed dude from Good Will Hunting. There is a tendency to take esoteric bits of information, treat it like the most elementary knowledge and then belittle those who did not know it. The overall hubris may even be more off putting about the place to females than the presumed misogyny.  

It's not so much that I think that familiarity with the thought of Jonathan Edwards is or should be elementary knowledge as that taking the title and gist of 'Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God' and using it, independent of context, to convey some sort of Salient Point about American Christianity is a specific pet peeve of mine, but yeah, I think you're right about this, and I certainly wouldn't call myself 'part of the solution' (although I'm not sure I'd agree that women as a class are a group that this alienates necessarily more than others).

As much as Nathan & others do this, in this case I think it is justified. Making an inflammatory statement like "religion is abuse" and then expecting kid gloves is absurd. Now if someone (say a hypothetical girl) had made the Jonathan Edwards comment as part of a coherent and polite argument and we acted the same way, then yes we'd be jerks for being snide about it.

My main observation is about forum culture in general and not merits. Frequently the arguments are two sides of the same coin.  Below is how I see many forum topics breaking down
A. inflammatory, iron clad declaration with supporting reference
B. OMFG, you are an idiot and here is why you are an idiot. Only utter moron would>> proceed to attack interpretation/knowledge of said reference
c. No, you.
d. Forum firing squad lines up in a circle.
e. rinse and repeat

This doesnt really bother me- I have been here near 10 years now. I continue to read here because there are bright people with informative, well reasoned insights. But it is a sharp elbows, acerbic crowd. And really I'm just a spit ballin.

You are right of course. What's worse is not necessary the people who are acerbic but the 'yeah well said' crowd who follow on and don't really have much to add to anything (as it would betray their own ignorance)

[Velasco]

Ugh. Is he really this desperate for attention?

Poor Manning. Poor America.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

There are certain things though that anyone who posts on a forum like Atlas should be smart enough to not buy into and deserve ridicule if brought up for how much they degrade the quality of analysis here. Such as claiming that Western Pennsylvania is full of "Reagan Democrats" or the poll re-weighting garbage we saw last year.

What's being discussed above does not necessarily fall into that category of course.

[traininthedistance]

Ugh. Is he really this desperate for attention?

Poor Manning. Poor America.

That's not even the worst thing in that thread, this is:

This might be just a ploy to try and serve out his sentence in a women's prison.

[Velasco]

That's not even the worst thing in that thread, this is:

This might be just a ploy to try and serve out his sentence in a women's prison.

Lol. That reply wasn't there when I posted in the Deluge.

Btw, the intention is not so much to ridicule like to call the attention on the lack of decency and humanity in certain comments, even if it's not intentional and is only a reflection of certain mentality that exists in the society.