Mark's version of "Jesus"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-08-2015, 10:08 PM
RE: Mark's version of "Jesus"
We do appreciate your posts, Mark.

Besides, if baby Jesus is real, Heywood's username is going to make him cry Sad
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like jennybee's post
03-08-2015, 11:00 PM
RE: Mark's version of "Jesus"
(03-08-2015 03:02 PM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  He doesn't want to read the entire post because he knows Mark's educational background on the subject as compared to his is like comparing the dick of a sperm whale to that of a field mouse.

Wow. A field mouse? You're being generous.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like The Organic Chemist's post
04-08-2015, 12:35 AM
RE: Mark's version of "Jesus"
(03-08-2015 03:02 PM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  Ah but see that's their style. Focus on one tiny piece of information that they can start an entire shit storm over to distract from the point as a whole; which completely eviscerates their silly belief system. He doesn't want to read the entire post because he knows Mark's educational background on the subject as compared to his is like comparing the dick of a sperm whale to that of a field mouse.

You just don't measure Heywood. Now sit the fuck back down while the rest of the class enjoys their education.

Do you always just make shit up?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2015, 12:40 AM
RE: Mark's version of "Jesus"
(03-08-2015 10:08 PM)jennybee Wrote:  We do appreciate your posts, Mark.

Besides, if baby Jesus is real, Heywood's username is going to make him cry Sad

If Jesus was a vegetarian what would he eat after his resurrection?

give up?

GRAAAAAAaaaaaains!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2015, 02:05 AM
RE: Mark's version of "Jesus"
(04-08-2015 12:40 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(03-08-2015 10:08 PM)jennybee Wrote:  We do appreciate your posts, Mark.

Besides, if baby Jesus is real, Heywood's username is going to make him cry Sad

If Jesus was a vegetarian what would he eat after his resurrection?

give up?

GRAAAAAAaaaaaains!

Yeah that's real funny HJ. Facepalm Gimme a a moment while I pick myself up.

Are you going to raise your standards, actually read the post, and make a sensible comment? Or is this it for you?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2015, 02:18 AM
RE: Mark's version of "Jesus"
(04-08-2015 02:05 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(04-08-2015 12:40 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  If Jesus was a vegetarian what would he eat after his resurrection?

give up?

GRAAAAAAaaaaaains!

Yeah that's real funny HJ. Facepalm Gimme a a moment while I pick myself up.

Are you going to raise your standards, actually read the post, and make a sensible comment? Or is this it for you?

Mark, I actually did read a little further into the chapter and didn't see any other logical fallacies that jumped out at me like that first one. Hopefully that makes you feel better. But seriously, I'm really not interested in the subject. Further, I don't like to read lengthy texts. However I do like to listen to audio books. Right now I'm listening to Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman. I think my next audio book will be David and Goliath by Malcom Gladwell. If you put your chapter into audio form, I'd listen too it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2015, 02:53 AM
RE: Mark's version of "Jesus"
(04-08-2015 02:18 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  ... Further, I don't like to read lengthy texts. However I do like to listen to audio books ...

Interesting.

I'm the exact opposite; I much prefer reading to listening. I can read much faster than listen, and unlike with listening can instantly re-read as necessary to find the meaning of something my mind didn't quite grab the first time.

It's true that sometimes I can listen and do something else while listening, but whatever that something else is it cannot occupy my intellect because I can only process one intellectual stream at a time. I can wash dishes and listen, but I cannot compose a post and listen - not without either doing a poor job with the post or not fully comprehending what I'm listening to.

As to lengthy texts - they can appear daunting, and TL;DR affects all of us, but if a text is worth reading it doesn't have to be scarfed down in one go. Read a paragraph, then do something else, then come back and read another paragraph, etc. If the writer is good, you'll get through 3000 words without noticing and bang into the end and wonder why it was so short. It would be nice if everyone writing at least attempted to be good at it, but it'd also be nice if everyone we met buys us an ice cream sundae, so a world less than what we want is the world we just have to live with.

Anyway, you and I having completely opposite preferences in how we like to take in information underscores why communicating is anything but a casual art - if it is to be effective.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Airportkid's post
04-08-2015, 03:09 AM
RE: Mark's version of "Jesus"
(04-08-2015 02:18 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(04-08-2015 02:05 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Yeah that's real funny HJ. Facepalm Gimme a a moment while I pick myself up.

Are you going to raise your standards, actually read the post, and make a sensible comment? Or is this it for you?

Mark, I actually did read a little further into the chapter and didn't see any other logical fallacies that jumped out at me like that first one. Hopefully that makes you feel better. But seriously, I'm really not interested in the subject. Further, I don't like to read lengthy texts. However I do like to listen to audio books. Right now I'm listening to Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman. I think my next audio book will be David and Goliath by Malcom Gladwell. If you put your chapter into audio form, I'd listen too it.

You're a Christian, I assume. Is that right? If so, you probably believe this Jeebus character was someone special. Why would you not be interested in spending 10 minutes reading what someone who has spent years researching the topic has to say?

I don't get it. Don't you want to know about him? Isn't he your god? What could be more important to you?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2015, 03:18 AM
RE: Mark's version of "Jesus"
(04-08-2015 02:53 AM)Airportkid Wrote:  
(04-08-2015 02:18 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  ... Further, I don't like to read lengthy texts. However I do like to listen to audio books ...

Interesting.

I'm the exact opposite; I much prefer reading to listening. I can read much faster than listen, and unlike with listening can instantly re-read as necessary to find the meaning of something my mind didn't quite grab the first time.

It's true that sometimes I can listen and do something else while listening, but whatever that something else is it cannot occupy my intellect because I can only process one intellectual stream at a time. I can wash dishes and listen, but I cannot compose a post and listen - not without either doing a poor job with the post or not fully comprehending what I'm listening to.

As to lengthy texts - they can appear daunting, and TL;DR affects all of us, but if a text is worth reading it doesn't have to be scarfed down in one go. Read a paragraph, then do something else, then come back and read another paragraph, etc. If the writer is good, you'll get through 3000 words without noticing and bang into the end and wonder why it was so short. It would be nice if everyone writing at least attempted to be good at it, but it'd also be nice if everyone we met buys us an ice cream sundae, so a world less than what we want is the world we just have to live with.

Anyway, you and I having completely opposite preferences in how we like to take in information underscores why communicating is anything but a casual art - if it is to be effective.

When I go to work sometimes I call ahead and get verbally briefed so I don't have to bother with reading the written one prepared for me and I find that to be much more effective in helping me to wrap my head around the game. I'm an audio visual person I suppose......definitely not a text person.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2015, 03:23 AM
RE: Mark's version of "Jesus"
(04-08-2015 02:53 AM)Airportkid Wrote:  
(04-08-2015 02:18 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  ... Further, I don't like to read lengthy texts. However I do like to listen to audio books ...

Interesting.

I'm the exact opposite; I much prefer reading to listening. I can read much faster than listen, and unlike with listening can instantly re-read as necessary to find the meaning of something my mind didn't quite grab the first time.

It's true that sometimes I can listen and do something else while listening, but whatever that something else is it cannot occupy my intellect because I can only process one intellectual stream at a time. I can wash dishes and listen, but I cannot compose a post and listen - not without either doing a poor job with the post or not fully comprehending what I'm listening to.

As to lengthy texts - they can appear daunting, and TL;DR affects all of us, but if a text is worth reading it doesn't have to be scarfed down in one go. Read a paragraph, then do something else, then come back and read another paragraph, etc. If the writer is good, you'll get through 3000 words without noticing and bang into the end and wonder why it was so short. It would be nice if everyone writing at least attempted to be good at it, but it'd also be nice if everyone we met buys us an ice cream sundae, so a world less than what we want is the world we just have to live with.

Anyway, you and I having completely opposite preferences in how we like to take in information underscores why communicating is anything but a casual art - if it is to be effective.

These are wise words.

We all live in a fast world. We want information, and ideas, and we want them now. We want instant gratification, and we all naturally balk at putting in the effort to understand stuff.

An author (perhaps someone like me) does understand stuff, or else he thinks he does. He desperately wants his readers to discover the same truths he has. The author walks a fine line between boring everyone with too much detail and making an interesting point.

I hope at least some of the people who have read my spiel "get" what I'm on about.

For my part, I seriously, now, having produced my own effort, try to read slowly what others have written. I appreciate the effort that goes into writing about history. It is hard.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: