|
Post by nitro on May 29, 2009 23:20:52 GMT -5
Clay if it took Einstein to help develop the Atom bomb you would think the U.S knew many women and children would be part it. And are still feeling the effects.Only nonsense because few generation of your family tree were not wiped off the face of this earth. Facts As many as 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki may have died from the bombings by the end of 1945[129], roughly half of the residential populations on the days of the bombings. Thousands more have been subsequently killed from injuries or illness due to radiation.[130] In both cities, the overwhelming majority of the dead were civilians. Now the U.S plays nuclear police and tells nations not to build something we stock pile. nitro
|
|
|
Post by junia on May 29, 2009 23:29:41 GMT -5
Here's my eulogy: Whenever I think of Edgar, I will forever think of .....adverb! That's funny, I think of hyperbole!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2009 23:47:26 GMT -5
Here's my eulogy: Whenever I think of Edgar, I will forever think of .....adverb! That's funny, I think of hyperbole! That too, sort of connected. But I was addicted to his adverbs......used to count them in his posts......I hope he comes back....
|
|
|
Post by toffeecrumble on May 30, 2009 6:16:51 GMT -5
Yes please come back Edgar we need your voice of reason:) When Mr. Massey accused the United States of deliberately targeting innocent children with bombs, he forfeited any claim to the title of "voice of reason". Millions of people hold that view as well! Should I be banned for saying so???!!
|
|
|
Post by toffeecrumble on May 30, 2009 6:22:06 GMT -5
Dear "child of god", Your comment regarding the above lacks a genuine Christ-like spirit yet you call yourself a child of God. I hate it when people are so caught up in a title that they forget to fulfil it. Peridot I am sorry for my lack... but I don't find any voice of reason in the posting of E. Hate filled and venomous is not reason. I can understand a person being mistreated and not liking someone very will... but you won't find me attacking him like he does us. I would hate to see what you guys would say about me if I posted using language he uses directed at you. Just voicing my opinion. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and so is reason! Some people who didn't see eye to eye with Edgar, and who were unfortunately incapable of accepting him as he is with his viewpoint, typically and true to type, revert to saying unkind, unreasonable things about him! What's new? We can all grow in our ability to understand others without taking on their viewpoint, at least learn how it can be that others see things differently.
|
|
|
Post by l on May 30, 2009 13:31:31 GMT -5
Edgar saw threw the 2x2 group...and called there bluff I see threw them also thats why I agreed with much of what Edgar said...I think many of us are in the same boat we are all victums to some extent looking for someone to blame..!Who is to blame but George walker,Jack carrol, and a few more also because these workers knew darn well it all happened in 1897 not on any shore of Galilee
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on May 30, 2009 13:52:34 GMT -5
lloyd, lloyd, must you continue to pretend an "us vs. them" atmosphere? Lots of people have opinions contrary to the f&w's, but Edgar drew fire puts because of his abrasive, take-no-prisoners technique. It puts people off.
|
|
|
Post by rjs on May 30, 2009 14:00:42 GMT -5
We are a society where technigques, appearances, and HOW we present ourselves is more important that WHAT we really say and do. Crazy. If something seems or feels a certain way, then dogone it, it is a certain way. How people "come across" is less important than what they say and do. Like one certain poster here who told me that something I wrote SEEMS a certain way. Like that would stand up in court. In court, how something seems or feels is of little important. No importance actually.
|
|
|
Post by Brick on May 30, 2009 14:17:30 GMT -5
I hear ya, but a smart person knows that if he wants people to listen, they must temper the message so that people WILL sit up and pay attention. I can't think of a person on this board who isn't at least partly right, but some are so vehement that I simply switch them off. Perpetual tirades are droll and unbalanced. I'm sure that I have missed many of Edgar's posts, but when he actually made a positive statement, I tried to make it a point to recognize it. I make the following prophesy: Edgar will not return. I say this because I feel certain that Edgar's principles will not allow him to reverse course. So Edgar is an ex again. X squared? One more and he will be Triple X and can have action movies made about his exploits.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on May 30, 2009 14:54:05 GMT -5
i had my tiff with the mods a while back, and I came crawling back, lol. hadda accept that not everybody thinks like me.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on May 30, 2009 15:14:52 GMT -5
Remember ranman? He was a funny but ineffective crusader against evil, who decided for a corn of wheat to reach its potential, it must fall into the ground and die. He grabbed our attention momentarily by suffering a spectacular but ignoble death. I fear he died in vain; I had my run-in with the pharisees for a few days afterward, but in the end, I was no more willing to die for my leader than Peter. Will somebody shut that frikkin bird up? --ranman(perhaps Edgar's followers will be more noble than me).
|
|
|
Post by pablo on May 30, 2009 17:27:57 GMT -5
Edgar saw threw the 2x2 group...and called there bluff I see threw them also thats why I agreed with much of what Edgar said...I think many of us are in the same boat we are all victums to some extent looking for someone to blame..!Who is to blame but George walker,Jack carrol, and a few more also because these workers knew darn well it all happened in 1897 not on any shore of Galilee Hey LLoyd, some friendly advice for you; why don't you use the internet to google the difference between the meaning of "has" and "as, " and the words "threw" and "through." I have been reading you for close to five years now and you have not improved one little bit. Some of you are victums in a boat looking for someone to blame?
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 30, 2009 18:30:18 GMT -5
One who adopts the role of teacher really ought to be skilled in the subject. The spelling is ' victims.'
|
|
|
Post by l on May 30, 2009 18:33:09 GMT -5
I agree my spelling can be bad at times
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on May 30, 2009 20:29:27 GMT -5
Edgar saw threw the 2x2 group...and called there bluff I see threw them also thats why I agreed with much of what Edgar said...I think many of us are in the same boat we are all victums to some extent looking for someone to blame..!Who is to blame but George walker,Jack carrol, and a few more also because these workers knew darn well it all happened in 1897 not on any shore of Galilee Lloyd, take care that you do not fall into the trap of contemporary "popular thought" in elevating opinion to the status of scientifically, or historically verifiable fact. Edgar did not "see through" anything; he offered an opinion; one perspective about the Church - a perspective or opinion with which you happen to agree. Let us not overstate the case. As time has gone on, I have come to realise exactly that which you acknowledge - there is an impulse, sometimes evident on the TMB, toward blaming someone. Perhaps the paradox of blaming one's religious woes on dead men leads to the evident non-resolution of those issues that we see here from time-to-time. However, Edgar was one of those who believed all the responsibility for his religious predicament fell upon the Workers and the Church, and none belonged to himself. This was the essence of Edgarism! We are each of us responsible for examining our own convictions and testing them to see whether they are verifiable. And Edgar - regardless of his perpetual excuses - could easily have checked, or asked regarding proof for the claims made about the origins of the Church at any point during his time as professing. One did not need to wait for the arrival of the Internet, circa 1996, in order to do that. Although I use this analogy for effect, and not as a precise correspondance, we are all familiar with scam-artists who try to turn a buck by getting people's money and enrolling them in schemes. Who is ultimately responsible for being duped? Does not some responsibility fall upon the individual who, willing to believe, wanting to believe, and eager for the promised incentive, gives over their hard-earned cash and never once critiques that which they are doing? However, it was not the matter of the origins of the Church that Edgar was angry about. Edgar claimed it was, but his angst also extended to amateur sociology in explaining how it was the organisation's fault - it being the malevolent thing it is - that people ended up being "controlled". Edgar was the master of minimising personal fault, and maximising the fault of others for one's personal behaviour - the Workers, the Church, the hypnotic hymns, the latent power games etc. In the end, Edgar was another angry liberal who rejected all forms of orthodoxy and authority. He rejected the scholarly authority of theologians, he rejected the pastoral authority of ministers (let the minister who would tell Edgar what to do, tremble in his cassock!). He even rejected the authority of the Apostles - Paul mostly, but Peter also. He rejected sola scriptura - the idea that God's word is the ultimate authority for faith and morals - as an idol, and angrily condemned those who would believe such things as idolatrous. Edgar's faith then, was a litany of that which he did not accept coupled to his strong belief in personal feeling - he called this the "Holy Spirit" - and used to explain that one did not hardly need the Bible, because the "Holy Spirit" leads us. Consequently, he was an expert in ambiguity. He refused to define, or explain the concepts he used, or even what he meant by certain terms or phrases, and thus spoke his own metalanguage that every once in a while us mortals could apprehend (though not often). This led to acts of minor dishonesty. I will never forget Edgar using a passage from the Bible - the parable of the Publican and the Pharisee - and actually inserting his own text into the quotation before claiming that the parable was actually a condemnation of "2x2ism" and their "attitude"! When I demonstrated both the doctored quote, and the inaccurate interpretation, Edgar offered a few feeble kicks in the shin, but refused to acknowledge that he had actually done something mildly dishonest. Stubborn to the end, Edgar always believed that if a professing person disagreed with him, it was additional proof of the corruption of that person's ethics, and the derangement of their thinking. Doctoring quotes, however, was something Edgar accused the Friends of doing. Over the years I recieved a lot of emails and PM's about Edgar, including one unsolicited email from a person who knew Edgar - and lived within his region - and who testified at length that Edgar's account of his exit, and of his treatment by the Workers was to some extent distorted and untrue. For some years I have not mentioned this email, but I have noted that it has somewhat changed the way I thought of Edgar. In the end my perception was one of a doddery older gentleman, one who with childlikeness refused to accept responsibility, and lived in a kind of parallel universe of "finding" nuggets to show how wrong the 2x2s were - whether those nuggests came through newspaper stories, or sociology texts, or even the Bible itself - the world was a rich source of counterargumentation. I do not dislike him, however. I feel a deep sense of pity and compassion, and take it as a warning never to let my heart dictate that which my mind sees; never to become so snagged on one part of life, caught on one point of my personal life history, that there is nothing else. Rather one aims to strive to be deeply honest, considering other points-of-view and taking them on their merit, and not being afraid to change my convictions.
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on May 30, 2009 20:42:23 GMT -5
We are each of us responsible for examining our own convictions and testing them to see whether they are verifiable. People oughta take personal responsibility instead of blaming others? That's CRAZY! Freakin' nuts. Should be illegal. ;D ;D ;D ;D fs
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2009 20:47:26 GMT -5
I hope Edgar comes back to respond to the GIC post......there's some hitting below the belt going on here.
|
|
|
Post by l on May 30, 2009 21:09:35 GMT -5
to G.I.C the 2x2 church is an unaccountable group that needs big time overhauling..history shows this so clear
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on May 30, 2009 23:14:05 GMT -5
I hope Edgar comes back to respond to the GIC post......there's some hitting below the belt going on here. Disagreeing with Edgar?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2009 23:25:24 GMT -5
I hope Edgar comes back to respond to the GIC post......there's some hitting below the belt going on here. Disagreeing with Edgar? Of course not, disagreement is an integral part of this site. Unsubstantiated personal attack is below the belt and, as Edgar would say, extremely ugly.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on May 30, 2009 23:27:28 GMT -5
The fact that you disagree with me does not make me wrong. You need to demonstrate my errors with more than disparaging adjectives.
According to my spell checker, I made 3 spelling errors in 912 words, which hardly warrants the claim of "numerous". To dilate on that point: only 0.3% - less than 1% - of my writing was inaccurately spelled . I shall pay particular attention to your own contributions to see whether you are bettering my ratio; those who pick on others for their spelling or grammar are often, in my experience, substituting pedantry for meaningful argumentation. In any case, whether my writing contains errors or not does not invalidate my opinion.
It depends on whether Edgar's opinion is close to your own. As I believe in verifiable facts, and an objective basis for my religious belief - i.e. a source text for example - my opinion is obviously going to differ from Edgar's.
One can identify oneself with any data if one wishes to. Whether or not there is a positive, verifiable connection between datum x and experience y is another matter altogether.
An interesting choice of words. Perhaps you might consider why you have such a strong reaction to my opinion, and furnish some counter-arguments that go beyond personal, unverifiable experience.
This is not an argument either, but a slander. My religous or professional associations neither prove nor disprove your point-of-view. For instance, the fact that I am an active union official does not invalidate my membership in my country's conservative part - and this is true religiously as well.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on May 30, 2009 23:32:34 GMT -5
Of course not, disagreement is an integral part of this site. Unsubstantiated personal attack is below the belt and, as Edgar would say, extremely ugly. You're overreacting. I have written nothing in my summation of Edgar's point-of-view that I have not written to him directly when he was an active participant on the board, and which I maintained in debate with him - with the exception of the disclosure of the email I recieved a few years ago. Edgar knows my beliefs and opinions quite well on this score. Your belief that this is an "unsubstantiated personal attack" is, of course, an opinion to which you are entitled.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2009 23:41:38 GMT -5
Of course not, disagreement is an integral part of this site. Unsubstantiated personal attack is below the belt and, as Edgar would say, extremely ugly. You're overreacting. I have written nothing in my summation of Edgar's point-of-view that I have not written to him directly when he was an active participant on the board, and which I maintained in debate with him - with the exception of the disclosure of the email I recieved a few years ago. Edgar knows my beliefs and opinions quite well on this score. Your belief that this is an "unsubstantiated personal attack" is, of course, an opinion to which you are entitled. I expected no less of a response from you, so be it.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on May 31, 2009 0:47:21 GMT -5
As I said, I am happy to repeat to the forum that which I have written previously, openly, and directly before.
Remember, a personal attack may not necessarily be an explicit statement but can come in the form of innuendo and suggestion. I wonder if you are susceptible to this kind of "unsubstantiated attack"? If so, it would then be a matter of "physician, heal thyself".
I speak with courtesy and delicacy, but you and I both know that you have now made two (or three) implicit personal attacks against myself in this thread. That is more than a little hypocritical.
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on May 31, 2009 1:05:30 GMT -5
I speak with courtesy and delicacy ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2009 7:48:16 GMT -5
As I said, I am happy to repeat to the forum that which I have written previously, openly, and directly before. Remember, a personal attack may not necessarily be an explicit statement but can come in the form of innuendo and suggestion. I wonder if you are susceptible to this kind of "unsubstantiated attack"? If so, it would then be a matter of " physician, heal thyself". I speak with courtesy and delicacy, but you and I both know that you have now made two (or three) implicit personal attacks against myself in this thread. That is more than a little hypocritical. Thanks for the lesson in personal attacks and hypocrisy.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on May 31, 2009 8:23:58 GMT -5
Give it a rest, Clearday. You've had your stunt, and defended decency by being spiteful and making implicit ad hominem assertions about my character. You and I both know what you've been asserting here.
You've got it out of your system; got in a few jabs; now let it go. Remember, if someone has an alternative opinion that is not the sign of a defective character - this is something you have yet to learn, unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on May 31, 2009 8:54:04 GMT -5
Oh dear! You make the fundamental mistake of imagining that American spellings for words must be international. In Australian and U.K. English we do not lace our words with "z's" as the Americans do. Rather we use the letter "s". Hence, we write of lasers, not lazers, for example.
The "misspellings" you identified are perfectly correct in most of the English speaking world: realise; maximising and organisation, for example. Moreover, the word "behaviour" is spelled with a "u", as is the word "colour" in U.K. and Australian English. You will also find other words are spelled differently: for example, we write of metres, and litres, not meters and liters.
Americans are rather insular when it comes to understanding the rest of the world, so your cultural ignorance can probably be somewhat excused. You see, students in Australia are taught the American and British spellings of words to ensure they write them according to our own conventions. We also aim to inculcate a sense of international citizenship in our students, by teaching about the histories of many countries and places, for example.
It seems American schools do not produce the same international awareness in their students. Therefore, your assumption that there must exist global conventions of English, and that those conventions must be U.S.-centric as though the U.S. defines the language in every place around the world, is laughable, contemptible, and absurd. Common sense should tell you that such is impossible, even if you were totally in the dark about alternative English language conventions.
We would spell it as "neighbour" which is correct in most parts of the English-speaking world. Hence your premature triumphal crowing only emphasises a rather limited view of the world, and a culturally elitist view of the language.
|
|