Earth Like planet found

[hoagiegal1970]

@infinity

Sorry, dear. All I was trying to do was make some sense out of utter nonsense. Some of these things being said needed to be challenged because of how absurd they were.

[NumbuhInfinity]

Well I just thought I'd ask folks to calm down a bit at the same time lighten the mood with my (attempt at) humor. ^^

[numbuheightbitstar]

I hope no one minds me repeating myself, because Madame, there is a post of mine that I believe you missed, and which would clear up your misconceptions. That post was like this:

You know what the problem with this debate is?

You and Madame have gotten this idea that my dislike of paper methods such as petitions = a complete and unabashed acceptance of bloodshed and violence.

You could not be more wrong.

The whole issue of militancy came up because you, 0xFF, presented a hypothetical example of the U.S. Government wanting to destroy a primitive alien species ("they wouldn't last much longer than the Native Americans did"). To which I answered that the massacre of the aliens could be prevented if the anti-contact factions got up in arms.

This is true--in your example, the Gov was already disposed towards militancy, and you can not reason with militants. The Vietnam protestors can tell you that (the ones that weren't shot, anyway). You can only threaten them with a show of force, or beat them down if push comes to shove.

Simply put, what I was saying was that for true change to take place, you have to take real action. Petitions, letters, and other paper methods are not actions.

Even your Civil Rights example says nothing to disprove that--Martin Luther King held rallies, organized "Sit-In" campaigns, and basically did all sorts of things which involved getting out of the house and doing something. I garuntee you if those Civil Righters had all just sat on their duffs and sent letters to their senators like everyone's encouraged to do now, we'd still have segregated schools and white-exclusive restaurants. The Feminists, too, got their way by going out into the streets and causing such a (non-violent) disruption that they became an issue the politicians simply had to deal with.

I have never seen a valid reason to think my beliefs are wrong. What I have seen is a lot of misunderstandings of my beliefs that invariably pervert them into a REH-like pro-barbarianism stance which is far distant from what I'm actually trying to convey.

Madame, I was honestly tempted to launch into a long, angry tirade against you. And if I was the barbarian you seem to think I am, that is exactly what I would have done.

My "Real Man" philosophy does NOT propose that we should all get up-in-arms and go around shooting people, it does not glorify violence and war, it does not excuse murder, and it certainly is not in the same boat as some white-haired old guy who started a war purely for ego reasons. These ideas ideas came from your interpretation of my philosophy, an interpretation that was blinded and biased by several factors. If you actually go back and read my posts, in particular the above, you will see that I am not advocating violent behavior at all.

The "Real Man" is, simply, someone who knows what his problem is (and I mean really knows, not just tries to scapegoat everything) and who puts honest effort towards a solution. It is not and does not have to be limited strictly to political or military contexts, as I already explained to 0xFF. To his credit, 0xFF seems to have understood this. You have not.

And as for Virginia Tech, no offense but that entire line of debate came off like something you brought in at random just to marginalize me. I was very much tempted to follow through and showcase some examples of your worst behavior, but see, I'm civilized and, at the moment, I have enough self-control to not fall into such petty tactics (but not enough to control my commas). Whatever the case, your interpretation of my Virginia Tech statements is, much like your interpretation of my "Real Man" philosophy, completely wrong, its central flaw being that it relies completely on the black and white ideal that "I'm not his enemy, therefore I must be his friend."

I do not see reality as a coin, with two very clear and definable "sides," but rather as a liquid nebula that can take any of an infinite number of forms and effects. You sadly seem to be in favor of the coin, and that is where our disconnect occurs.

Also, Lord British might not be a real person, but he's still no less valid an example than the television shows and Sci-Fi novels (which also aren't based on reality) that everyone's been referencing since this topic began. And disguising yourself in order to gain information is not exactly an unrealistic strategy. Real government figures do something similar, except that they usually hire people to do it for them instead of doing it themselves (and they usually do it to find out what's going on in other countries, not what their people think of them). Your and 0xFF's dismissal of Lord British as an example seems to hinge wholly on that he's a video game character. I get the sense that if he were from a book or a television show, you would have accepted the example, which smacks to me of narrow-mindedness.

*Sigh*

It's taking all the effort I can muster to not simply flame you and be done with it. Please don't let my effort be for nothing.

[hoagiegal1970]

numbuheightbitstar said:

Madame, I was honestly tempted to launch into a long, angry tirade against you. And if I was the barbarian you seem to think I am, that is exactly what I would have done.

So with apologies to the forum at large: Bring it on. I'm a big girl and can take what you have to say.

The "Real Man" is, simply, someone who knows what his problem is (and I mean really knows, not just tries to scapegoat everything) and who puts honest effort towards a solution. It is not and does not have to be limited strictly to political or military contexts, as I already explained to 0xFF. To his credit, 0xFF seems to have understood this. You have not.

So then if this "Real Man" (I agree with 0xFF that you need to change that title) is your ideal, work towards it. But first, can you at least try applying it in society?

And as for Virginia Tech, no offense but that entire line of debate came off like something you brought in at random just to marginalize me.

No, I was simply pointing out how it seemed that you were defending what the VT shooter did. There's never any reason to tie in your personal political platform with a tragedy. I'm not just referring to you, either--it's ALL those people who grandstanded for their causes (e. g. gun control) after it happened.

I was very much tempted to follow through and showcase some examples of your worst behavior, but see, I'm civilized and, at the moment, I have enough self-control to not fall into such petty tactics (but not enough to control my commas).

As I said before: bring it on.

Whatever the case, your interpretation of my Virginia Tech statements is, much like your interpretation of my "Real Man" philosophy, completely wrong, its central flaw being that it relies completely on the black and white ideal that "I'm not his enemy, therefore I must be his friend."

See, this is exactly why people on this board had trouble sustaining an argument with you in the past. You're always right and everyone else is wrong.

I do not see reality as a coin, with two very clear and definable "sides," but rather as a liquid nebula that can take any of an infinite number of forms and effects. You sadly seem to be in favor of the coin, and that is where our disconnect occurs.

And that way's better than the other? Everyone has different ways of seeing the world at large. Who are you to say what's ideal and what's not?

Your and 0xFF's dismissal of Lord British as an example seems to hinge wholly on that he's a video game character. I get the sense that if he were from a book or a television show, you would have accepted the example, which smacks to me of narrow-mindedness.

Here we go again. You're so open-minded and tolerant, and I'm not (and that goes for other people who disagreed with you in the past). Didn't you read what I wrote? I would rather you use an example of a real person from history than any fictional character. That goes for my beloved books as well (though I'm not about to throw out any of them).

*Sigh*

It's taking all the effort I can muster to not simply flame you and be done with it. Please don't let my effort be for nothing.

Bring it on. I'm waiting.

With apologies to Infinity.

[numbuh82]

Madame Hoagie's Gal your meant to be a moderator,your not meant to try and pull in arguments,Look at your selfs,all of you,This was a thread celebrating the fact that a planet which is similar to ours was found and a bloody war starts over politics.

I really advise a Admin making a Mistribation board.

[hoagiegal1970]

Look, if someone's going to bloody attack my character and integrity, I'm telling them to do it and get it over with.

This isn't the first time James got into arguments like this--far from it. In fact, the most recent example was the "Reasons Why the 21st Century is Making You Miserable" thread.

What's "mistribation", anyway? 'Cause there's really no need for a tribunal, if that's what you're referring to.

[Numbuh 0xFF]

numbuh82 said:

I really advise a Admin making a Mistribation board.

I might. However I'd first need to know what in the name of all that pure&holy is 'Mistribation'. And let me tell you, it's a name fraught with possibilities each more harrowing than the last.

@re: flaming

Oi! Less of that, please.

[numbuh82]

Taken directly from another forum.

"Arbitration is, simply put, the settling of disputes. Well this is MISarbitration. Burn, baby, BURN!" -Forum Description

This is a flame forum. Here you can rant, flame, and generally get things off your chest. Anyone entering this forum should have a thick skin. If you don't, don't blame me for what feelings might get hurt. You may be able to say what you want, but expect to have your flames returned to you.

[Numbuh 0xFF]

Ooooh. I've always heard that called a BBQ pit.

Well.

It's actually a fairly good idea.

[numbuh82]

I've seen the most calmest and respected go in and well,you can kinda guess the out come.

[hoagiegal1970]

That IS a good idea.

Heck, I'm an old fart. ;D I can handle being roasted. ;D

[numbuh82]

In the one I'm on about there were only two rules.

Don't be racist and don't mock religion.

[Numbuh 0xFF]

We'll just gently snip off the latter rule. It gets in the way of too much fun. And, well, you have heard of the phrase "nothing is sacred", right? *evil grin*

[numbuh82]

Well I'm all for the freedom of speech but It would be wise to keep them,If you insult a people they will rise,If you insult a religion the world will rise.

Grand if you want to debate about it but don't actually insult one.It's ok if something is a joke but if taken two far or the wrong people see it,Well just look at the Muslim protest over that silly cartoon.

[sjedmondson]

Yes but people have a right to excercise there beliefs I think that a "BBQ pit" (I think you should coin that phrase 0xFF) should have few rules.

I am not a racist and have never been, I am also an athiest and dislike most religons but these are just my views.

I think the main rule in a BBQ pit shoud be:

If you have an opinion to flame, express it properly.

As in not:

"christainity is well gay!"

But in a well written piece.