I prefer the almond ones, but any type is good.

If you posit a skymaster you cannot complain when normal people ask "What?".

And nobody is stopping you from posting skymaster nonsense.

You had all the advantages of two engines and props without the disadvantages of asymmetric thrust in the event of an engine failure. Unfortunately the rear engine had cooling problems that were never fully solved.

He had a charter and FBO back in the day he also had a Beech 18.

That's him on the right with his 310 and some other dude

I'd love to own a twin, but it's hard to justify the exponentially higher cost of ownership. Better to fly them when someone else is paying the bills.

Or, at least the last of them. I used to love that show when I was a kid. He started out with a T-50, and then later moved up to the 310.

I'm so freaking old! Sheesh!

She was too old for me, but she played younger. My real crush was on Natalie Wood, though.

So was Richard Pryor.

And Lenny Bruce.

Good for you, Gil.

We have footage of what happened--

Do you want to be sinner?

I don't think he's had any of his posts hidden here. He even has a fan club - he's told us several times that he receives numerous personal messages asking him to continue doing what he is doing, and praising his efforts to promote religion in this group.

But, that's not good enough for Gil. Unfortunately, people who don't agree with him are allowed to post here, too. That's just so unfair, and it is exactly the same as if he were prohibited from posting all those positive references.

And it is the same for every post that presents religion in a positive light.

As to the rest of your response, it is mis-framing.

How unspeakably awful that must be for you.

And I understand why.

Including this one I'm responding to.

So you just made another example of why discussions don't happen in this group.

No such commandment is needed. The Statement of Purpose for this group is clear and it is being followed.

who seem to attack any positive posts and posters. Almost as if some wish to discourage positive posts and posters.

If you are discouraged by opinions that differ from yours, you should probably not be on the Internet, gilly.

Do what you claim you want to see happen.

Start a dialog and explain exactly what it is you want. Your OP has been interpreted to mean that you don't want people to respond negatively to your posts. Multiple people have explained why this isn't the place for silencing opposing views, and you refuse to explain yourself.

And you have the nerve to bemoan the lack of dialog.

Sheesh.

You clearly don't want anyone disagreeing with you, and anyone who does will only get abuse in response.

Last edited Wed Apr 4, 2018, 05:20 PM - Edit history (1)

Discussion often involves disagreement with ideas. Otherwise, it is of no value.

You simply call things misframing or dismiss them. That is not discussion. It's simply weak argumentation.

What it seems to me that you want is agreement with your positions. In this group, clearly there are people who do not agree with those positions and who will present their reasons for that disagreement. They will also post their own thread starters to open discussions you don't care for.

This group is not for agreement on religious questions. There are plenty of such groups available. This group is an open forum for the discussion of issues about religion. You will never succeed in making it an echo chamber for one point of view, which seems to be your hope. It's not going to happen.

Multiple people have now pointed this out to gil, so I believe he will now pull out his tired old references to a "choir."

And that's one reason I know you don't want discussion because it's the only thing you do.

Now I will have to recalibrate it, again.

It's always broken with you around.

are people required to respond positively to it?

And if they don't agree, they should just shut up. Otherwise, he'll post yet another self-pitying whine-fest. He just can't stand that there exists this one group wherein people are allowed to post opposing opinions.

one believes as you do. Many here don't believe as you do, assuming that we have any idea what you believe. What seems positive to you may have a different sense to others.

Accusing people who disagree with you of mis-framing and other negative things doesn't help one bit, either.

But, oh well. We must play the hand we're dealt, I suppose.

about the existence of one group where opposing views are permitted.

I'm reminded of a parable from the Bible. I'm paraphrasing, but it goes something like this: There were two men. One was a rich man who had large herds of livestock, and his neighbor was a poor man who had one sheep that was his pet. The rich man wasn't satisfied with his own extensive property, and he coveted his neighbors one sheep. So, when the rich man wanted some meat, he went and took his poor neighbor's pet sheep and killed it and ate it.

But you did exactly that, G-man. Go reread your OP. In fact, I'll post the relevant part of it here for your convenience:

The 11th Commandment to read:

Thou shalt not make any positive references to religion, religious beliefs, or theists in this group.

That is a statement about limiting posts or viewpoints.

And the point is to highlight the constant attacks on any positive posts.

It's extremely dishonest to suggest that you are prohibited from posting what you perceive as positive stories. You can post as many of those as you like. People who disagree with you can express their disagreement. If those expressions of disagreement bother you so much, there are multiple groups available to you where such posts are not permitted.

But I wonder why some few atheists seem to feel the need to question the intelligence nd the motives of anyone posting positive news.

And some posters have stated that they refrain from posting in the religion group specifically because of this behavior. Anyone reading the posts and responses here can see that the insulting language is overwhelmingly directed at the theists. There actually is a difference between insults and dialogue.

It's pretty arrogant for you to act like you represent every theist, but even if you did, my response was to you and not to theists in general. And as I clearly said, you can post what you like. So can the people who disagree with you.

That's rich.

I'll make sure to let you know the moment I give a shit.

Waiting on your fan club to give you help with a witty retort?



"Hey Rug...she said she wasn't impressed by my offense...and she used a curse word. What do I say now?"

Rug is on permanent FFR and his zombie sock was recently banned as well. Same for Justin's multiple zombie socks, too. And hey, you're the one that constantly brag about your behind the scenes fan club of closeted religionists who send you fan mail at such a furious pace you can't even keep up with the responses....so fearful of the hateful atheists, so afraid to post in this hardly-a-blip-of the internet, that they rely on you, the lone voice in the wilderness, never cowering in your unwavering ability to paint atheists with the broadest brush possible and employ all of the logical fallacies. Yes, Gill, you are the lone warrior of God here in the religion forum. You must fight for our souls. ..and yours....

I understand your anger at the post. I do.

Uh...it's not.

You are attacking people. Why you are doing so only you can answer.

.

I am convinced.

.

If you believe a post violates the rules of DU, there is a tool available to send such posts to a jury.

The topic of this open group is Religion, not DU Terms of Service statements.

To further extend some subthread in an old thread?

Oh, well, do as you please.

You posted a quote from the site rules that says not to post about site rules.

Legalism. Often the last refuge of those who would restrict freedoms. Legalistic religious denominations are often repressive and abusive. Imagine...

And look at the post that I responded to.

in which we may consider whether an OP containing a metaphorical literary device may contain a subpost which literally breaks it's own quoted rule that ostensibly resolves into dual ambiguously sarcastic rejoinders. Did the Jesuits teach you about postmodern philosophy? You seem to be a master of it.

But consider a far simpler alternative: that my post is merely an observation of what is quite obvious. What happens here in response to any positive posts has been happening here for quite some time.

So this metaphoric tree has fallen, falls, and will continue in future to fall. My reaction to the sound of that falling is a simple matter.

The people responding either don't think they are good or don't think they are news. I can think of one example like that. You posted about a group of Tennessee clergy that signed a statement against racism prior to an alt-right rally in the state.

About 165 clergy signed. Some thought this wasn't news because it was only 165 out of thousands of clergy in Tennessee. Some thought it wasn't good because it implied that those thousands of others were in fact racist or at least just not all that concerned about it.

Now, I can understand why you might disagree on those points. But likewise can you understand why a group of atheists might not be all that impressed?

which reads:

But the mere fact of disagreement does not mean such disagreement is "pretextual."

Rather you and they are coming at the issue with a very different set of assumptions and so see the same thing through different filters. This is a simple fact of the human condition.

That way, Gil never has to actually discuss or defend his positions. Isn't that convenient?

opposing views exist.

And yet, he appears to be attracted to them and feels he must respond to them.

Sort of odd paradox though. Why post topics you know will generate controversy, then complain when the controversy occurs?

So I believe, anyhow. The complaints extend the argument and attract more controversy.

You and everyone else are completely free to make any such references you wish. You are not free to do so without comment, though. This is a discussion group, where everyone is free to post.

I understand.

and some with insult.

criticism of a post to the opposition of having such posts at all?

Interesting.

Internet forum, I suppose. Then one could establish one's own rules.

That's a lot of work, though, and no audience is guaranteed. Awkward, that.

Failing that, one copes with what one has, I guess.

Perhaps some equate the two, of perhaps some equate insult and attack with dialogue.

Here it is, as told in the Gospel of Matthew:

Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

You have insulted, and continue to insult, every atheist here by insisting that you get to define atheism for them. You've proven you don't give a shit about that, either. So why should anyone give a shit about what offends you?

Only 4 or 5 of the 10 are worth the stone they are written on.

And I thought the whole book of gibberish was not supposed to be interpreted literally anyway. So when it says “don’t kill people” that really means “eat more spinach”.

and insulting a particular theist who is always asking for it.

and not just you whining that people who don't agree with you get to post on the same forum.

I'm very sorry that upsets you, but you don't get to decide for everyone else.

I'm sure it's frustrating that you can't burn the heretics anymore, but you need to get over that. Pick any one of the many safe haven groups for believers if you don't like to see "bad news" about religion. Or else quit whining.

And then there's the threatening of an eternity burning in Hell if we don't believe. Of course, that's an empty threat to atheists.

I understand.

Instead of whining about everyone else "misreading" you and "misframing" what you said, try explaining yourself more clearly. You know, engage in this "dialog" that you constantly moan about being lacking here.

I've tried. When are you going to?

It's tedious and boring, especially from people who have nothing to complain about. If you don't like having your beliefs challenged, feel free to seek camaraderie in any of the many safe havens here where such questioning is not allowed.

where he can enjoy his religious privilege to the fullest. But no, there are people on a message board saying things he doesn't like, so he needs to stop that.

Do you think he's receiving numerous personal messages from his throng of admirers, praising him for this pathetic temper tantrum?

Seems to work for Trump.

EDIT: It sucks sometimes, but this website is all about airing our various opinions on stuff. If you write a post about religion, you invite said opinions to be aired, and subject yourself to the dictum concerning opinions and a**holes...

Unless the person explicitly reveals them, and even then, they could be lying. But appeal to motive is a logical fallacy suggesting that if the speaker's motives are questionable, then their statements must be untrue.

and often with very similar wording, that does reveal things. Motive is frequently asserted in proceedings of all types. And absent an explicit confession, or assertion, or other direct evidence, it is left to the Judge/Arbitrator/jury or audience to decide as to the validity of the observation.

motive is determined based on careful objective weighing of all available evidence by neutral third parties, typically through the review of documents, testimony of witnesses and opportunity of the accused to present their side through legal counsel.

An internet debate is about as far from a court room as it is from a surgery center.

of providing people a place to post about religion that do not tolerate any posts expressing disagreement, criticism, or awkward questions. So, Gil doesn't have to invite said opinions to be aired when he writes a post about religion. He can avoid it very easily, by posting it in one of those groups instead of this one.

argument, so they can recursively maintain that argument indefinitely through continued provocations. Such people find no arguments in protected groups.

Others promote arguments by creating subthread that derail the original discussion and turn it to a new topic. These strategies are common on many discussion forums.

I see it constantly in this group, and generally by the same few posters.