Before You Say "I Believe"...

[orangeatheist]

Several of you have written to me regarding your faith, here in forum and privately.

I'm often told how personal experiences have convinced you of the reality of your faith. Some have stated they "feel" the presense of a supernatural being. Others "hear" things, "know" things, etc.

Please watch the following and, with all due respect, question everything you "feel", "think" and "know":

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lW2yKlNFFuU"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lW2yKlNFFuU" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/G18NfN76bAs"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/G18NfN76bAs" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Ha ha! Those New Age Woo-woos! They know nothing about real faith!

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2Sq-YUdq1OI"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2Sq-YUdq1OI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-DylNVUN_3I"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-DylNVUN_3I" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[RkyMtnThunder]

for someone who doesnt believe in god - you sure spend a lot of energy discussing it.


your mouth may say one thing, but it almost appears as if....


well, never mind. You would just write it off anyway..

[orangeatheist]

for someone who doesnt believe in god - you sure spend a lot of energy discussing it.


your mouth may say one thing, but it almost appears as if....


well, never mind. You would just write it off anyway..

Must've hit a nerve. Got a bit too close to home because you apparently can't comment on the content of the videos. You'd rather take issue with me and speculate on my motives, trying to justify your own belief by surmising that, if I discuss it I must share it somehow.

"My mouth" says exactly what I intend it to say. I hide nothing. But this thread isn't about me. It's about the content of these videos and what they point to about human belief. Would you care to comment about that? Or was this just a drive-by posting; void of any real content?

[Watchthemiddle]

Sorry I have dial up...GRRRRRRR...can someone translate what this video says???

Is it related to a Salvation issue??

Does it have to do with MY and YOUR Salvation??

If not then what is the point?

SO many people want to get involved in the issues that have NOTHING to do with Salvation.

That is where many NON=Believers get stuck

They get stuck in issues that many Christians don't even understand, but in all REALITY have nothing to do with SALVATION.

SO, please someone tell me...does this VIDEO prove anything or disprove anything as far as MY or YOUR Salvation goes???

Because if not, then who cares.

SO, please translate. I know my Salvation is covered...why, because Jesus came, died, and rose from his death for my SINS. Other then that, nothing else matters.

[RkyMtnThunder]

Must've hit a nerve. Got a bit too close to home because you apparently can't comment on the content of the videos. You'd rather take issue with me and speculate on my motives, trying to justify your own belief by surmising that, if I discuss it I must share it somehow.

"My mouth" says exactly what I intend it to say. I hide nothing. But this thread isn't about me. It's about the content of these videos and what they point to about human belief. Would you care to comment about that? Or was this just a drive-by posting; void of any real content?

I did not watch these videos. Bottom line is, the only thing you seem to do on this site is discuss religion.

I just find it ironic that someone who doesnt believe in a higher power is so apparently obsessed with it.

Makes you kinda wonder. You remind me of the hardcore homophobic, if you know what I am getting at

You are as equally annoying as any religious zealot who wishes to cram their belief (or in your case lack thereof) down people's throat

[SoCalBronco]

I don't need to watch your videos. It is a useless exercise. I believe not only because of my faith, but also because it has been proven to me by an absolute certainty.

What do you think the probability is of an entire church being built from (almost) scratch to complete in one night (not day)? What's the probability of the only witness getting freaked out and leaving town because the picture he points to as the person he went up to and complained to in the middle of night (due to noise) was a picture of a Saint who died a thousand years ago?

I'd invite you to come to St. Mina's church in Colton, California. I'm not making this stuff up.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

for someone who doesnt believe in god - you sure spend a lot of energy discussing it.

Bingo.

I pointed this out to him awhile ago, and he put me on ignore!

Anyway, you've touched on what, IMO, is so boring and silly about atheists:

They define themselves in terms of their opposition to the notion of a higher power.

Hence, their entire sense of identity is just as dependent on God as that of any believer.

[c_lazy_r]

Sorry I have dial up...GRRRRRRR...can someone translate what this video says???

Is it related to a Salvation issue??

Does it have to do with MY and YOUR Salvation??

If not then what is the point?

SO many people want to get involved in the issues that have NOTHING to do with Salvation.

That is where many NON=Believers get stuck

They get stuck in issues that many Christians don't even understand, but in all REALITY have nothing to do with SALVATION.

SO, please someone tell me...does this VIDEO prove anything or disprove anything as far as MY or YOUR Salvation goes???

Because if not, then who cares.

SO, please translate. I know my Salvation is covered...why, because Jesus came, died, and rose from his death for my SINS. Other then that, nothing else matters.



I didn't know dial up still existed. Thought it went the way of 8 track tapes...

[orangeatheist]

SO, please someone tell me...does this VIDEO prove anything or disprove anything as far as MY or YOUR Salvation goes???


Thank you for playing.

I did not watch these videos.

I’m not in the least bit surprised.

I don't need to watch your videos.

So you needn’t comment. I’m beginning to see a pattern develop. Fascinating.

[orangeatheist]

Bingo.

I pointed this out to him awhile ago, and he put me on ignore!



LABF, indeed I have you on "ignore" but if you respond in one of my threads, I'm going to peek at what you had to say. Ironically, I discover you've pretty much repeated the reason I have you on "ignore." You're a pathological liar.

I didn't put you on "ignore" because you accused me of believing in God while hiding behind my atheism. I put you on "ignore" because you're pathologically dishonest. You obviously think someone can't look through the archives. Remember these? From January of 2005:

Thanks for quoting LABF in your post, rascal. His words just further confirm why I'm so grateful that I put him on ignore. I'm not sure how you can call replacing words in sources not tampering (that's the very definition of the word!) but in his world, everything is a bit topsy turvey.

rascal, you and I may disagree on some things, but not on our mutual opinion regarding LABF. While I agree that teaching creationism is moronic, for LABF to tamper with his sources and rewrite newstories substituting his own emotionally-laden words is unforgivable in my world.

Tampering with news stories and substituting words in them is what got you put on my "ignore list," LABF. How would you like your crow? Feathers or plucked?

[alkemical]

You are as equally annoying as any religious zealot who wishes to cram their belief (or in your case lack thereof) down people's throat


:undecided

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I didn't put you on "ignore" because you accused me of believing in God while hiding behind my atheism. I put you on "ignore" because you're pathologically dishonest.

Whatever gets you through the night.


You obviously think someone can't look through the archives. Remember these? From January of 2005:

Tampering with news stories and substituting words in them is what got you put on my "ignore list," LABF. How would you like your crow? Feathers or plucked?

My, aren't you the master of distortions and half-truths?

The "tampering" in question involved satirical stuff like replacing Bush's name with some funny nicknames.

In no way was the substance of the story altered.

You get an 'F' in intellectual honesty.

[orangeatheist]

My, aren't you the master of distortions and half-truths?

No, LABF, that's your department, as will soon become boldly apparent as I continue.


The "tampering" in question involved satirical stuff like replacing Bush's name with some funny nicknames.

In no way was the substance of the story altered.

You get an 'F' in intellectual honesty.

Hmmm...I don't see you anywhere supporting your assertion, "I pointed this [someone spending a lot of time discussing god when they don't believe in it] out to him awhile ago, and he put me on ignore!" anywhere in your above post.

I do see you trying to troll and derail the thread, however. And, of course, I see you engaging in your favorite habit of being pathologically dishonest. You just can't help yourself, can you?

If I get an "F" in intellectual honesty, I think you're the bell tower loon with a gun when it comes to it. You say you were just changing Bush's name. Being silly. Using satire. Is that really a fact? It seems you have forgotten:

Originally posted 1/11/2005


Shielding the super rich from liability his primary goal

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...sh_lawsuits_dc

Bush launches an uphill battle on Wednesday to limit medical malpractice lawsuit awards that he says drive up health care costs, seeking to protect the super-rich from accountability.

The battle pits powerful groups against each other: trial lawyers against insurance companies and doctors who whine that rising premiums for malpractice insurance are driving them out of business...

As I read this "quote" from LABF and noticed the source, something just didn't add up. Would a supposedly non-biased source use words like "super-rich" and "whine"? So I clicked on the link and found the real article. Compare it to LABF's spin above. I will red font what LABF altered:

President Bush (news - web sites) launches an uphill battle on Wednesday to limit medical malpractice lawsuit awards that he says drive up health care costs, seeking to fulfill a popular re-election promise.

The battle pits powerful groups against each other: trial lawyers against insurance companies and doctors who say rising premiums for malpractice insurance are driving them out of business.

How do you justify that? How do you justify using altered sources? I just can't understand how anyone can do this. I battle Christians (particularly creationists) damn near everyday who engage in this kind of dishonesty and every one of them claim they are champions of the truth. You claim the same thing. You think you are some "voice crying in the wilderness" and yet you get caught red handed altering your sources.

If I had any reason to read your posts --to listen to your side of the story-- it has evaporated now. Any credibility you may have had vanished with your lack of integrity. I will now filter all your messages.

That was a lot more than merely being satirical, LABF, and you know it. That's why your nose is so bent out of shape. I caught you being dishonest in quoting a news source and then not letting your readers know you had deleted words and whole phrases as well as changed words. Your credibility took such a huge blow that you've had it stuck in your craw ever since. What I failed to notice at the time was how you even altered the title of the news story. You claimed it was, Bush Launches Battle to Limit Your Rights in Court: Shielding the super rich from liability his primary goal, when in fact it was, Bush Launches Battle to Limit Malpractice Awards (http://www.feeeds.com/2005-01-06/). Just another nail in your credibility coffin, eh, LABF?

I can't help it if my BS detector went off in '05 around you, man. You just happen to stink to high heaven (no pun intended).

At any rate, when someone would like to discuss the content of the videos I posted (you'll have to sprout a spine and watch them first which is proving to be quite a challenge to everyone so far), I'll be around. But the weekend's coming, got a Bronco game to watch, kids to play with, so it may be Monday before I get back. Send me a PM if you'd rather discuss this off-list. I realize the content is rather uncomfortable.

[RunByDesign]

I think that Darren showcases the obvious ability of not only religion, but also of pychomanipulation of the masses and the individual. Which, just so happens to encapsulate the direct efficacy of born and bred religion.

There are many ways to achieve this end, obviously. Religion and political meddling create a sort of artificial symbiosis, albiet an powerful conduit to manipulating belief, which is, a root of psychologic control byway of the premise, itself. Fundamental decisions are born from this premise, this understanding, if you will. By far the most effective form of psychological control in the modern era, and perhaps since the dawn of all men and all eras, it could go without saying.

But perhaps, Darren's campaign is in and of itself, a form of control? Or manipulating an "understanding" possibly.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

That was a lot more than merely being satirical, LABF, and you know it.

Not at all.

In fact, you're just making my case for me.

Only names were altered - not facts or claims.

It was an effort at satire.

And, in case you didn't notice, the alterations were not mine - I simply copied and pasted the article, as written, from another source.

The fact that you are going to such great lengths to work this red herring speaks to your credibility.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

But perhaps, Darren's campaign is in and of itself, a form of control? Or manipulating an "understanding" possibly.

My guess is that those who raised him tried to shove religion down his throat and this is his way of disabusing himself of those ideas which were forced upon him.

This is pretty accurate, to one degree or another, regarding just about every atheist I've ever met (including philosophy of religion professors in college, etc.)

[RunByDesign]

My guess is that those who raised him tried to shove religion down his throat and this is his way of disabusing himself of those ideas which were forced upon him.

This is pretty accurate, to one degree or another, regarding just about every atheist I've ever met (including philosophy of religion professors in college, etc.)

In any case, he raises the question, byway of his psychological tinkering. Those who have the propensity to be conditioned readily, using these techiniques, (which emcompasses nearly all) will likely suscribe to the notion that they have had an epiphany and that there is, in fact, nothing in essence. Their belief system has been turned upon its ear.

Still, fewer, shall say to themselves, "intriguing," and inquire more.

[Rohirrim]

The rationalist has his own religion. He believes that everything can be explained through reason. There are more things on heaven and earth, Horatio. ;D

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The rationalist has his own religion. He believes that everything can be explained through reason. There are more things on heaven and earth, Horatio. ;D

:yep:

"We must not always reduce the irrational to the rational, as do the Bolsheviks and the Americans, too - both are extraordinarily rational, and they both produce a frightful oppression and impoverishment of life."

- Hermann Hesse, "Steppenwolf" (film version)

[mosca]

:yep:

"We must not always reduce the irrational to the rational, as do the Bolsheviks and the Americans, too - both are extraordinarily rational, and they both produce a frightful oppression and impoverishment of life."

- Hermann Hesse, "Steppenwolf" (film version)
Listen for the Laughter of the Immortals!

[orangeatheist]

I think that Darren showcases the obvious ability of not only religion, but also of pychomanipulation of the masses and the individual. Which, just so happens to encapsulate the direct efficacy of born and bred religion.

There are many ways to achieve this end, obviously. Religion and political meddling create a sort of artificial symbiosis, albiet an powerful conduit to manipulating belief, which is, a root of psychologic control byway of the premise, itself. Fundamental decisions are born from this premise, this understanding, if you will. By far the most effective form of psychological control in the modern era, and perhaps since the dawn of all men and all eras, it could go without saying.

Agreed. And thanks for the relevant comments, RBD. I certainly don’t think that Derren is demonstrating how all people come to believe in gods and follow a religion. But what I think he’s doing that needs to be examined by everyone who holds a particular belief is demonstrating how easy it is for us –as human beings—to readily believe things that simply are not true. We go far more by appearances than by the reality behind them. If what we see makes us feel good and confirms preconceived notions, then we are far more likely to be persuaded by someone providing a benefit that satisfies these beliefs. These demonstrations should be a catalyst for launching people in to more deeply examining what they hold dear.


But perhaps, Darren's campaign is in and of itself, a form of control? Or manipulating an "understanding" possibly.

It is, of course, possible, but I don’t think that’s the thrust. If it were, I don’t think he’d be revealing his techniques. Have you ever seen his show? It’s astounding, really. Here’s an example:

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/befugtgikMg"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/befugtgikMg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Not at all.

In fact, you're just making my case for me.

Only names were altered - not facts or claims.

It was an effort at satire.

And, in case you didn't notice, the alterations were not mine - I simply copied and pasted the article, as written, from another source.

The fact that you are going to such great lengths to work this red herring speaks to your credibility.

Keep diggin’ that hole, LABF. The “source” from which you copied your story was Yahoo News. Are you seriously trying to suggest that Yahoo News originally printed the article just the way you pasted it? Or, equally as damning, are you suggesting that you copied that altered news article from another anti-Bush site and then printed it here without any reference to that site and have subsequently (until this day) claimed the alterations were indeed yours as some sort of form of "satire" and that YOU only "altered" the names?

I'm going to have to assume you're lying about pulling that article (with all the alterations) from a differnet source; that you weren't really the author of the alterations. I will do so based upon your habit of being a pathological liar and until I see evidence to the contrary. So, deleting “President” from the reference to Bush reveals your bias and attempt to persuade others not to refer to him as such. It reveals your contempt for the man and that you don’t think he’s the legitimate President. But deleting the title is a subtle tactic that folks like creationists enjoy using for their dishonest purposes. For instance, when the Dover school board tried to undermine evolutionary theory and promote creationism they made certain the statement read to the children said, “Gaps in the Theory [of Evolution] exist for which there is no evidence.” The original document, drawn up reluctantly by other parties, read, “Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is yet no evidence.” The board made sure the word “yet” was deleted in order to further an agenda. You’re just following the same dishonest routine. Squirm all you like, LABF. You’ve been nailed.

Substituting “protect the super-rich from accountability” for “fulfill a popular re-election promise” is also not only altering names. It certainly is not a fact from the article nor what the article claimed. You just can’t stop lying, can you?

Also, saying doctors “whine” instead of “say” is not altering names. It’s also not factual nor what the article claimed.

By the way, LABF, I’ve never seen anyone move goalposts in a thrashing more often or more swiftly than you do. This started out with you asserting that I put you on “ignore” because you pointed out that I argue too much about god for someone who doesn’t believe in one. When that was pointed out to be false, you quickly changed your tune (without admitting your error) and claimed that all you had done with those news stories was to replace ”Bush's name with some funny nicknames.” Now this has been proven false and you changed your tune again to merely claim that “only names were altered, not facts or claims.” Now that this has been proven false, what’s your next dodge going to be?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Keep diggin’ that hole, LABF. The “source” from which you copied your story was Yahoo News. Are you seriously trying to suggest that Yahoo News originally printed the article just the way you pasted it?

Nope.

I found it on bartcop.com. It was Bart who made the changes.

But keep trying to make a mountain out of this mole hill - it makes for good entertainment. :giggle:

[gunns]

Being the cynic I am, I see nothing different with these videos than with your non belief in God or a supreme being. Anyone who believes in God or a supreme being does so with faith as few have had the opportunity to actually meet such a being. I question the reality of the video's. Not saying it's not real but who's to say those aren't set ups. I guess you'd have to have faith they are real incidents.

[Bronco Bob]

Nope.

I found it on bartcop.com. It was Bart who made the changes.

But keep trying to make a mountain out of this mole hill - it makes for good entertainment. :giggle:

He is right about how you keep changing the subject.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

He is right about how you keep changing the subject.

I'm not changing the subject - I just don't have time to read his lengthy dissertations in their entirety.

I just wanted to respond to his allegations about altering news stories.

[Florida_Bronco]

My guess is that those who raised him tried to shove religion down his throat and this is his way of disabusing himself of those ideas which were forced upon him.

This is pretty accurate, to one degree or another, regarding just about every atheist I've ever met (including philosophy of religion professors in college, etc.)

You pretty much hit the nail on the head right there.

[W*GS]

Anyway, you've touched on what, IMO, is so boring and silly about atheists:

They define themselves in terms of their opposition to the notion of a higher power.

Hence, their entire sense of identity is just as dependent on God as that of any believer.

Well, no. But keep operating under one of your (many) illusions. That's how you get through the day...

[W*GS]

My guess is that those who raised him tried to shove religion down his throat and this is his way of disabusing himself of those ideas which were forced upon him.

This is pretty accurate, to one degree or another, regarding just about every atheist I've ever met (including philosophy of religion professors in college, etc.)

Well, you've met an atheist (in me) who wasn't raised in the manner you allege.

What does that say about your prejudices, biases, and stereotyping? Quite a lot, but you'll never concede that you're wrong. You never do.

[Bronco Bob]

My guess is that those who raised him tried to shove religion down his throat and this is his way of disabusing himself of those ideas which were forced upon him.

This is pretty accurate, to one degree or another, regarding just about every atheist I've ever met (including philosophy of religion professors in college, etc.)

To expand on what W*gs said.
There are over a billion atheists/agnostics/nonreligious/secular humanists in the world.
Are you trying to claim you have met every single one of them and
claim to know the motivations of every single one of them?

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

[mosca]

My guess is that those who raised him tried to shove religion down his throat and this is his way of disabusing himself of those ideas which were forced upon him.

This is pretty accurate, to one degree or another, regarding just about every atheist I've ever met (including philosophy of religion professors in college, etc.)
I wouldn't call myself a strong atheist, but I am an agnostic, and what some might call a negative athiest - simply lacking a belief in God. While I was raised, religion was never forced down my throat, and wasn't even brought up much at all ... I was encouraged to decide for myself. Not all atheists were raised in the way you describe.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

To expand on what W*gs said.
There are over a billion atheists/agnostics/nonreligious/secular humanists in the world.
Are you trying to claim you have met every single one of them and
claim to know the motivations of every single one of them?

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

Not at all.

(Which is why I said "just about every atheist I've ever met" and not "every atheist.")

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I wouldn't call myself a strong atheist, but I am an agnostic, and what some might call a negative athiest - simply lacking a belief in God. While I was raised, religion was never forced down my throat, and wasn't even brought up much at all ... I was encouraged to decide for myself. Not all atheists were raised in the way you describe.

I can dig it.

A self-test somebody posted here awhile ago described me as a "spiritual atheist."

I guess that's accurate insofar as I believe in God (or a Higher Power) - I just don't embrace a personal notion of God, divinity, Higher Power, the transcendent, etc., etc.

[alkemical]

I think that Darren showcases the obvious ability of not only religion, but also of pychomanipulation of the masses and the individual. Which, just so happens to encapsulate the direct efficacy of born and bred religion.

There are many ways to achieve this end, obviously. Religion and political meddling create a sort of artificial symbiosis, albiet an powerful conduit to manipulating belief, which is, a root of psychologic control byway of the premise, itself. Fundamental decisions are born from this premise, this understanding, if you will. By far the most effective form of psychological control in the modern era, and perhaps since the dawn of all men and all eras, it could go without saying.

But perhaps, Darren's campaign is in and of itself, a form of control? Or manipulating an "understanding" possibly.



Well we as humans like to 'belong'. it makes us feel less isolated, loved, etc. All beliefs contain a 'cult' syndrome, where 'belief' is a 'program' and you find ways to validate your 'belief' (in ANYTHING).

Now as far as 'control' - control over the mind is what just about any institution wants (no matter what the message: gov't, religious, cause (environmental, etc)), direct you to read this, and viola! You get reinforced to think that way (http://www.trans4mind.com/transformation/transform6.10.htm).

Everyone thinks there is "one" unified reality, but it's impossible unless we are all "borg". The human consciousness is not totally definable, and until (or if) that mystery is ever solved - we will always be left arguing over toys in our sandboxes.

[RunByDesign]

Well we as humans like to 'belong'. it makes us feel less isolated, loved, etc. All beliefs contain a 'cult' syndrome, where 'belief' is a 'program' and you find ways to validate your 'belief' (in ANYTHING).

Now as far as 'control' - control over the mind is what just about any institution wants (no matter what the message: gov't, religious, cause (environmental, etc)), direct you to read this, and viola! You get reinforced to think that way (http://www.trans4mind.com/transformation/transform6.10.htm).

Everyone thinks there is "one" unified reality, but it's impossible unless we are all "borg". The human consciousness is not totally definable, and until (or if) that mystery is ever solved - we will always be left arguing over toys in our sandboxes.

I happen to think that there are billions of different realities. I think that this is more accurate than generalizing that there is one unified perception. (This really annoys WAGS, but) Relative to ones' own perception, the universe, or quite possibly, the multiverse is only defined as clearly as the individual can understand it. Many different levels of understanding, many different realities.

But what about the tangible realities, the physical realities? Insofar as the chemical and electrical reactions in our brains function to interpret our physical environment, reality is defined per the human condition. Any variance of that particlar condition, might dictate an altered perception. Is the Sun yellow? Maybe. To someone who posesses some occular malady, maybe not. Is it fact? Is it real? I suppose that might be determined by whose perception that you rely on, perhaps.

An incessant amaranthine, of sorts.

[alkemical]

I happen to think that there are billions of different realities. I think that this is more accurate than generalizing that there is one unified perception. (This really annoys WAGS, but) Relative to ones' own perception, the universe, or quite possibly, the multiverse is only defined as clearly as the individual can understand it. Many different levels of understanding, many different realities.

But what about the tangible realities, the physical realities? Insofar as the chemical and electrical reactions in our brains function to interpret our physical environment, reality is defined per the human condition. Any variance of that particlar condition, might dictate an altered perception. Is the Sun yellow? Maybe. To someone who posesses some occular malady, maybe not. Is it fact? Is it real? I suppose that might be determined by whose perception that you rely on, perhaps.

An incessant amaranthine, of sorts.


That's more or less a better description of what i agree with than i could have penned.

[orangeatheist]

Well, seeing as the topic of this thread is being avoided by most folks, I'll close it by noting the following:

Nope.

I found it on bartcop.com. It was Bart who made the changes.

But keep trying to make a mountain out of this mole hill - it makes for good entertainment. :giggle:

Seeing as how the incident is a couple of years in the past and any "bartcop" page that may have hosted the article has likely long since vanished, you can pretty much claim anything.*

The fact remains, however, that the article was dishonest as it relayed a true news story and you reprinted it without apology. But perhaps the most damning part of this new admission is that you claim to have copied the altered article from someplace other than Yahoo News and yet your link was not to Bartcop (which would have gotten off the hook), but to Yahoo News (which is how I discovered the alterations). So, if you are not responsible for the alterations (which earlier you said you were) you are --at the least--guilty of plagiarism and misdirection.

I'm sorry, LABF. But this hole is just too deep for you to climb out of. Every time you try you just kick more dirt in on top of yourself.

You say these revelations are entertainment? Indeed they are. It's like watching a bug dance on hot summer pavement; and you are the bug.

*-Edit to add: I searched Bartcop and found the article you reprinted. Indeed you are not the author of the alterations (see how easy it is to admit error?). The fact remains that you did not credit your source which is why I assumed you were the author and the alterations were a product of your own dishonesty. That impression, of course, was fueled by your failure to credit your source. Had you done so, your credibility would have been saved. As it was, you took credit for the alterations, calling them minor "nicknames" and continued to bury yourself at every opportunity. Why didn't you just come clean when the first misconception was voiced? In that entire thread you don't credit Bartcop with the original copy. In fact, the only thing you said regarding the alterations I pointed out was, "So I 'alter' sources by changing 'President Bush' to 'Smirk,' etc? You might have a point had I actually altered the substance of some claim or another, but, alas, I have not." So, you took credit for the alterations I pointed out. At the very least, you didn't deny them. At least not until August of 2007. And that, of course, after I busted you for claiming I put you on "ignore" for a inaccurate god-comment.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Seeing as how the incident is a couple of years in the past and any "bartcop" page that may have hosted the article has likely long since vanished, you can pretty much claim anything.

Not at all.

Anyone who reads bartcop.com knows that Bart does this sort of thing, i.e., changes proper names in news articles for satirical purposes, on a regular basis. You might even say it's his schtick.

The fact remains, however, that the article was dishonest as it relayed a true news story and you reprinted it without apology. But perhaps the most damning part of this new admission is that you claim to have copied the altered article from someplace other than Yahoo News and yet your link was not to Bartcop (which would have gotten off the hook), but to Yahoo News (which is how I discovered the alterations). So, if you are not responsible for the alterations (which earlier you said you were) you are --at the least--guilty of plagiarism and misdirection.

The only "facts" here are that (1) you obvioulsy don't understand satire, and (2) in an effort to make your "point" here, you're willing to repeatedly ignore the fact that only names - not facts or claims - were changed.

I'm sorry, LABF. But this hole is just too deep for you to climb out of. Every time you try you just kick more dirt in on top of yourself.


The only "hole" here is the hole created by your excavation of the dirt required to make a huge mountain out of a mole hill.

[orangeatheist]

Not at all.

Anyone who reads bartcop.com knows that Bart does this sort of thing, i.e., changes proper names in news articles for satirical purposes, on a regular basis. You might even say it's his schtick.

And there's where you made your mistake. Not everyone is familiar with Bartcop. You are trying to make the argument that "everyone should know my source is bartcop.com". What nonsense. You passed that off as your own work (actually, the work of a legitimate reporter). You have the news story (linked to Yahoo) with the alterations. You never once pointed back to bartcop nor did you ever subsequently reveal your source. What is someone who ISN'T familiar with bartcop going to think? Especially someone who values the integrity of quoting accurately and citing sources?

No matter how you slice it, LABF, you were dishonest. And it was your dishonesty that got you filtered; not your comment that I argue to much about a being I don't think exists.


The only "facts" here are that (1) you obvioulsy don't understand satire,

I do when it's labeled and/or presented as such. You didn't do that. Like I said above: had you revealed your source I would never had said anything. As you presented it, you had taken a news story from Yahoo (your link) and then altered the story in this forum which is designed for debate. It isn't the Satire Forum.


and (2) in an effort to make your "point" here, you're willing to repeatedly ignore the fact that only names - not facts or claims - were changed.

I've already detailed what was changed in the article. And it wasn't only names. The evidence speaks for itself.


The only "hole" here is the hole created by your excavation of the dirt required to make a huge mountain out of a mole hill.

Misquotes and not citing sources isn't a mole hill. It's a mountain where I come from. In my world, integrity means everything. I see, in your world, it does not. Back into the filter box you go. I don't have time for charlatans (especially those who hide their dishonesty behind "satire" and think that lets them get away with it).

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

And there's where you made your mistake. Not everyone is familiar with Bartcop. You are trying to make the argument that "everyone should know my source is bartcop.com". What nonsense.

Wrong again.

The point isn't that "everyone should know my source..." - the point is that I gave you a way to verify that what I said was true, viz., that I found the article on bartcop.com

Further, it should be obvious to the reader that the author of a piece that appeared on yahoo news didn't really refer to Bush as "Dim Son," or whatever - even if the reader has never heard of bartcop.com.



You passed that off as your own work (actually, the work of a legitimate reporter). You have the news story (linked to Yahoo) with the alterations. You never once pointed back to bartcop nor did you ever subsequently reveal your source. What is someone who ISN'T familiar with bartcop going to think? Especially someone who values the integrity of quoting accurately and citing sources?

Nonsense. Now you're really reaching. Nowhere did I claim that I was the author of the piece. In fact, doesn't your insistence on the link to yahoo contradict such a claim?

No matter how you slice it, LABF, you were dishonest. And it was your dishonesty that got you filtered; not your comment that I argue to much about a being I don't think exists.

You are overreaching with your spin here.

If you want to construe giving Bush, et al, funny nicknames (which is all that really happened here) as "dishonest" (as opposed to "satirical") then all you are doing is advertising your own political bias here.

've already detailed what was changed in the article. And it wasn't only names. The evidence speaks for itself.

And you have yet to show that the substance of the article, i.e., facts, claims, etc., was altered in any way, shape, or form.

This is why it's clear you are trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill here.

[W*GS]

I happen to think that there are billions of different realities. I think that this is more accurate than generalizing that there is one unified perception. (This really annoys WAGS, but) Relative to ones' own perception, the universe, or quite possibly, the multiverse is only defined as clearly as the individual can understand it. Many different levels of understanding, many different realities.

You're lumping together metaphysics and epistemology, and essentially putting the cart before the horse. It's not the case that our senses define or create reality - suppose you see a bird but do not hear it, and I hear it but do not see it. Is it two existents, because each of us has a different perception (is that the same as "understanding") of it?

[lazarus4444]

I learned a long time ago that you can't discuss people out of their faith. They believe what they believe and that is all there is to i.

Matt