Clay to Jxr

[jxr]

clayrandall said:

...
My math is just fine, thank you. You responded to a quote from Howard made on September 27, 2005 at 9:17. There had been only one comment made since then which was about three months later. You decided to add your brilliant observation four months after that. This could reasonably be called an inactive thread. Figure it out for yourself.

I apologise in advance for my lack of intellect, but I would have thought that actvitiy would be better judged by the date of the last post, rather than that of the original post. I mean, let's just examine the vast volumes of traffic that pass through that board. The top ten threads currently have dates of:

Yesterday at 1:12
by ClayRandall

Apr 5, 2006, 2:21
by ClayRandall

Apr 4, 2006, 0:34
by ClayRandall

Feb 21, 2006, 2:53
by ClayRandall

Feb 14, 2006, 4:46
by ClayRandall

Feb 11, 2006, 5:08
by bumper

Jan 29, 2006, 4:58
by Howard

Jan 27, 2006, 11:01
by Howard

Jan 23, 2006, 9:57
by HRL to Clay

Jan 23, 2006, 9:54
by Mrs Jason

Jan 23, 2006, 9:31
by HRL again

We only have to go two more threads and we're back in December. Wow, what a heavy demand on the server. I think that will give some idea of the level of activity. With such levels of activity, I was probably responding to the second thread on the list.

Additionally, my post on that thread is reply #7 which would seem to me to completely debunk your assertion that there was only one other post between Howard's original and mine.

Finally, you pass judgement on my intellect by reference to my brand of humour.

So: Misrepresentations, lies and ad hominem attacks. Is that what you're made of? What other, more intellectual traits, have you presented me with which I should discern?

[ClayRandall]

jxr said:

I apologise in advance for my lack of intellect....

Think nothing of it. It's understanding that allows people like me to tolerate people like you. (quoted from Ferris Bueller's Day Off)

jxr said:

but I would have thought that actvitiy would be better judged by the date of the last post, rather than that of the original post.

That's where we part ways on opinion - see below:

jxr said:

I mean, let's just examine the vast volumes of traffic that pass through that board. The top ten threads currently have dates of...

*yawn* The last post in the thread in question was on 9/30/5. HRL's post in January was a comment on the concept of there being no hell; therefore, it was not regarding Mary as Mother of God. Your erudite comment came four months later, followed by Hmmmm who also questioned your motive.

I judge the activity of a thread based on the content of the discussion pertaining to that particular subject. Since there had been no participation on that thread regarding Mary since September, 2005, I call it an inactive thread.

jxr said:

Finally, you pass judgement on my intellect by reference to my brand of humour...

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that you can say anything with impunity and then later equivocate by claiming that you're just being "flippant" or "irreverent". Or, you try to turn the focus away from your juvenile behavior by whining about personal attacks and your ridiculous quibbling over dates.

If you say something that stupid and insensitive in the future, I will call you on it. You are the one who will be made to look foolish, and perhaps that will stimulate something deep inside you that you may recognize as remorse.

jxr said:

So: Misrepresentations, lies and ad hominem attacks. Is that what you're made of? What other, more intellectual traits, have you presented me with which I should discern?

Oh, don't cry, Jxr! I'm just being flippant and irreverent!

Next, I plan to start speculating about the quality and quantity of your mother's sex life!

[jxr]

Your style seems to be limited to belittling and denigrating remarks. It appears you take every opportunity to attack a person, rather than addressing the content of the posts.

If you were simply offended by my original remark, you could have made a simple statement such as:

"jxr, if your remark about Mary was intended to contain sexual connotations, I find it offensive."

I would have readily made a public apology in response to such a comment. However, you had to fein ignorance about the intent of my comment, in order to politicise the whole event.

I previously thought that you were an intelligent person and your discourse intellectual, but I discover that you are merely a political opportunist who happens to have an interest in catholicism. I find your style pathetic.

[ClayRandall]

jxr said:

Your style seems to be limited to belittling and denigrating remarks. It appears you take every opportunity to attack a person, rather than addressing the content of the posts.

Wrong again. If you'll bother to go back and refresh your memory, you'll find that I began by addressing the content of your post. I believe I stated that your remark was salacious, vulgar, stupid, irrelevant, etc. You are the one who started speculating about my character, saying "It really shows what you're made of"

jxr said:

If you were simply offended by my original remark, you could have made a simple statement such as:

"jxr, if your remark about Mary was intended to contain sexual connotations, I find it offensive."

I especially like your euphemism "intended to contain sexual connotations", but it's too late to try to sanitize it now.

jxr said:

I would have readily made a public apology in response to such a comment. However, you had to fein [sic] ignorance about the intent of my comment, in order to politicise the whole event.

As I already stated, I wanted to make sure I didn't misunderstand your comment first. This is a public forum, friend. You are held accountable for your public statements, just like I am.

jxr said:

I previously thought that you were an intelligent person and your discourse intellectual, but I discover that you are merely a political opportunist who happens to have an interest in catholicism. I find your style pathetic.

That's ok, Jxr. I stopped telling poop and orgasm jokes when I became an adult. You're obviously the kind of person who thinks your Mary orgasm comment was worthy of attention by posting it in an inactive thread. Perhaps it wasn't the kind of attention you were expecting.

I'll make you a deal. You bring up a topic unrelated to the sex life of Mary, the mother of my Lord Jesus Christ, the one who is most blessed of all women (Luke 1:42), and I'll try to behave myself better. Maybe I'll surprise you with how pleasant I can actually be...

[jxr]

Clay, I don't do deals.

You began by politicizing the issue. You brought the comment, box-and-dice, to a different forum "for those who are interested". As there were other methods of bringing the issue to my direct attention, I'd say you took every opportunity to escalate the publicity. Holding a person accountable is one thing, but sensationalising is another entirely. The post as brought to this board:

clayrandall said:

For those who are interested, here is the quote in question from Jxr:

"Since Jesus' conception is purportedly asexual, it is likely that Mary didn't come at all."

Note that the following is merely a cut-and-paste of Clay's political diatribe. There is nothing made up or re-interpreted, as Clay has the habit of doing in his responses:

Clay first feins misunderstanding:

clayrandall said:

I'm not real smart, though, so explain it to me...

And miraculously following that, Clay has a revelation as to the meaning:

clayrandall said:

spanky said:

The whole sentence does not make sense (besides the asexual part). But if I may, I believe Jxr meant to spell come as cum. Either way, that sentence does not make sense Clay??? Conception is not dependant on a womans orgasm. Maybe I have to read it in the whole context.

That is exactly the way I read it, Spanky. I'm asking Jxr to confirm that he/she was speculating about the Virgin Mary having an orgasm, which is not only incredibly vulgar but also irrelevant with regard to human conception (even less so for the miraculous Incarnation of Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit)

Then he criticises mrleo's valid comment:

mrleo said:

I can tell when someone's panties are in a twist to the point that they would drag a topic from the board on which it would more properly belong to one on which it doesn't, all because of a clearly pretended misunderstanding, in an effort to shame or have a public argument with the person who caused you to be offended.

with this:

clayrandall said:

This is a statement based upon an absence of fact. I quite clearly stated my understanding of what Jxr wrote in my post at 14:28 this afternoon.

And in the same post, denys his earlier position:

clayrandall said:

I did not pretend to not know; I was asking him to confirm what I already thought he meant, for the purpose of telling him that I think such a statement is superfluous and salacious and wholly inappropriate.

Political weasling, I say. Sorry Clay, NO DEAL.

I now sincerely and unreservedly apologise to you and others for the offense caused by my comments about Mary's sexual experiences.

I expect others on this board might expect you to similarly repsond regarding your pointless political stunt.

[oh get over yourselves]

can't you dweebs get along?

[jxr]

oh said:

can't you dweebs get along?

If, by getting along, you mean we should pretend that everything is just fine and dandy, then no.

[how sad]

how sad for U

[like kids]

how said:

how sad for U

No kidding, they both could use some growing up.

[ClayRandall]

jxr said:

Political weasling, I say. Sorry Clay, NO DEAL.

Of course it wasn't actually a "deal", it simply was my attempt to extend an olive branch.

It's unfortunate that the limitations of cyberspace interfere with tone and inflection, but I think most people understood that I already knew what you meant when I asked you to explain/verify. My comment to mrleo about wanting him to explain it to me was made sarcastically.

You sure did put a lot of effort into going over my posts again. If only you applied the same energy and focus in analyzing your own statements before you make them...

jxr said:

I now sincerely and unreservedly apologise to you and others for the offense caused by my comments about Mary's sexual experiences.

Apparently, I'm the only Christian in this board who was offended enough to say anything about it, but apology accepted. I apologize for being interested in making pointless political stunts, but we've all got our little hangups, I suppose.

[yada yada]

Ok, to sum up the above argument into a single, simple, statement:

"yada yada yada blah blah blah"