The $%*! frustration thread

[FaustWolf]

Erotic elegy...? Is that anything like the Zombie Sex Party being advertised at my college right now? (I kid, I kid...though I am "morbidly" curious as to what an erotic elegy might entail).

Daniel, bear in mind that ZeaLitY has stated elsewhere that he is going through a process of personal growth and transforming the negativity he's previously drawn energy from into something more effective. It would behoove you to read that and understand that ZeaLitY's position isn't necessarily as monolithic as it might seem at first, or as it once might have been; you don't really need the over-bombastic element in your recent posts where an appeal to the sentiment ZeaLitY himself expressed in that earlier post would have sufficed. You might not have been around to see it back in September but I thought it was rather poignant and worth bringing up now.

[Lord J Esq]

The basic assumptions and presuppositions I have, the mood of my fellow citizens, is not like that which you see around you. Many of those things you talk about as requiring change, as being socially problematic, are neither so prounounced and, at times, not even extant. Religious manifestation, for example, something I have been taken to task on several times. …

And that's my frustration. I have at times been treated as speaking for the status quo, or some sort of religious theocracy, or the powerful majority, or similar things. Now while that might be true were I an American, I am not, and in this country (and this is yet more pronounced if I travel east or west) my occassionally more conservative viewpoints are in fact the minority, and if I do speak against certain things it is not upholding the norm, but challenging it.

Daniel, you have been judged on the merits of your ideas. The popularity of those ideas is irrelevant. Your nationality is unimportant.

That is, that the vast majority of you ... are forgetting something important...

I think a bias has been set on many of my comments.

I am looked down on as someone speaking for a social elite...

...my occassionally more conservative viewpoints are in fact the minority.... I have a perspective that many of you simply don't have.

These kinds of remarks did not catch my attention at first, but stood out brightly to me once you posted your separate assault on ZeaLitY. You feel unappreciated, misunderstood, unloved. Congratulations, buddy. You just joined a club with seven billion people in it.

Your nationality has nothing to do with your reception here. You are judged by your ideas. Majorities and minorities are unimportant in the court of ideas. We all have been in the majority some times and in the minority other times. You are not unique in that regard. You are in good company.

Hm, no, ZeaLitY on this manner has an extreme bias that should be watched for. Sorry, ZeaLitY, but it is true. You are not speaking very rationally when you approach the aspect of religion. And, let me add to this, that you are not particularly versed in the subject. I know you think you are, but your statements are about it tend to be about the level of a schoolchild attempting to grasp advanced physics. I find it amusing that one could easily take someone to task for being a mere dillitante in the sciences, and by the misunderstanding what they mean, but when it comes to religion, everyone thinks they can have a valid, intelligent, and meaningful opinion. It's simply not the case. It is a genuine field of study, as complex as any other, and to think it can be dismissed on the grounds of an intuitive opinion, or that one branch of the sciences (ie. empiricism, which is a branch, and a branch only, because religion does technically fall under the aegis of science or, shall we say rather, philosophy) can disprove the other in this fashion, is absurd and egocentric. There is nothing validated in statements made from mere personal rage and ignorance, and that is all you've tended to typically say on the matter.

Your assault on ZeaLitY caught me completely by surprise. I still don't know what exactly he said that set you off. I briefly considered the possibility that you had incorrectly assumed my comment that the Compendium would be cracking down on bigotry to have come from ZeaLitY...but I think you're smarter than that. So, I can only conclude that you were telling the truth, and that this noxious bag of gas has been building up in you for quite some time. Good to let it all out, then. This is the right thread for it.

I tried to cut down the above paragraph of yours, but really the entire thing is germane to what I have to say. I'll say it in your own words. As we're reviewing them, I want you to think about all those times you've thrown a fit and abandoned an argument on the grounds that your opponents have nothing to offer but ad hominem:

You are not speaking very rationally when you approach the aspect of religion. And, let me add to this, that you are not particularly versed in the subject. I know you think you are, but your statements are about it tend to be about the level of a schoolchild attempting to grasp advanced physics.

ZeaLitY is allowed to ramble at a novice level about how much he hates religion, and indeed at how great science is also at a novice level, and thinks he can utterly shut down those who actually are dually versed by in applied scientific and humanities alike. As far as I know, I am the only one here that has formal training in both.

And frankly, man, and this must be said, if one speaks of fields of learning, of intellectualism, I, or Thought perhaps ... are far more actually knowledeable, and have been more exposed to varying fields of thought.

But the frank fact is, your rants are nothing more than that: you have nothing to support them that would hold academic weight, you have no actual training, not in the sciences, not in religion.

But I am drawing academic elitist rank on you. I know this is your Compendium, but in the name of intellectual interaction, stop it. And I mean that seriously. I've had enough of your anti-religious rants.

And frankly, ZeaLitY, a bit of historic studies would do you good.

If my comments are considered too shameful, too shocking or daring, well, fine, I'll leave the Compendium, and go to where open dialogue is actually welcomed, in the University. Because I'm just too tired of seeing this.

These remarks tell me two things about why you're really ranting and raving today.

For one thing, it's quite apparent that you have a very high opinion of yourself—trust me, I know the type—and that you feel personal resentment toward ZeaLitY and others for offering philosophical resistance to your worldview. I say “and others” because you've made almost the exact same rant against me in the past. There's nothing novel about your latest impassioned diatribe. These dramatics are simply your modus operandi...homologous in purpose to the rhetoric I myself use in debate alongside more substantive arguments. There's no real merit to your claim that you're as intellectual as you say, or that ZeaLitY is as ignorant as you say. Or, hell, maybe you do actually believe all that fluffy sunshine you're blowing up your ass; I don't know. It doesn't matter. I see through you, mister. Whether you're deliberate or delusional, I know intellectuals, and you're not one of them. All these years I had tried to fit you into that mold because you're filled with academics and you even have some scholarship about you. But you always made such a rotten intellectual...incurious, dishonest, obliviously egotistical. You let real intellectuals speak for you; that's why we're always hearing about Aeschylus or Seneca, and not Daniel Krispin. On any subject where I've been even moderately well-versed, you've never been a match for me. The same has held true whenever you have gone up against ZeaLitY. Eventually I figured it out: You're not an intellectual. What you are instead, I haven't figured out yet. It depends on whether you're self-loathing or self-doubting. If it's the former, then you're a destroyer. If it's the latter, then you're a warrior. Either way, you're an aggressor—in the same general class as ZeaLitY. You've even spoken of your love of war and domination before. I feel stupid for not having put it together until this year. What makes you comparatively rare is your eccentric choice of weapons: history and the esoteric. It must come from your upbringing. Intellectuals can be very powerful, and you have modeled yourself upon them. I should very much like to see, in the interest of my personal knowledge, what the true nature is of all these intellectual exchanges at University to which you frequently refer. If I'm ever up there, I shall have to sit in on one of these conversations.

The other thing that I can tell from your above remarks...is something which only I would have noticed. You don't actually mean much of what you've said. If you were straightforwardly dissatisfied with the quality of conversation at the Compendium, you would have simply left without comment, or perhaps left with a couple of private messages to express your complaints to key individuals. I know enough about psychology to understand that when somebody makes a public threat like the one you made, it's not about straightforward dissatisfaction. Assuming you hadn't gone temporarily insane when you made that post, then either you wanted attention (which I think is unlikely in your case), or you were unable or unwilling to express your emotions directly and got caught up in the game of double-meanings. I think that's what happened. You actually like it here at the Compendium. You want to stay here. But you don't like the criticism. You don't like being in the minority. You don't like your most important convictions being dismissed out of hand. Which raises the question: With all of that, why do you want to stay here? That's not a rhetorical question. You ought to answer it for yourself, honestly, and then act accordingly. I for one think the Compendium is better off with your participation, because you are an intriguing character and we could always use more of those. But if you are worsening the quality of your life or the pursuit of your ambitions by remaining here, then it's time for you to go.

I'm going to run through your post again, now, and respond to the substance.

ZeaLitY is allowed to ramble at a novice level about how much he hates religion, and indeed at how great science is also at a novice level, and thinks he can utterly shut down those who actually are dually versed by in applied scientific and humanities alike. As far as I know, I am the only one here that has formal training in both.

Many of us have formal training in both the arts and the sciences. By using that word, “both,” you are raising the bar as high as you can in order to make yourself look good. It is unfortunate that your self-aggrandizement comes at the expense of intellectualism's accessibility to the masses. Intellectualism has a bad name in large part because of people like you who portray it as this exclusive club that only geniuses can join. You know what else is unfortunate, Daniel? You set the bar higher than you yourself can reach. With the exception of your most specific areas of expertise, one or another of us could outclass you in every subject there is. Not only would you make other people feel bad about themselves; you yourself would fail to profit by it.

It is true that ZeaLitY's “ramblings” are not always earth-shattering. I think his quality varies widely. At his worst, he is a loud-mouthed blowhard who makes his point poorly and alienates friend and foe alike in the process. But, at his best, ZeaLitY has become a knowledgeable and persuasive advocate of human excellence and progress, and his firepower is battleship-class. His intelligence is growing with time. His ability to craft arguments is growing. His mastery of ideas is growing. You deny this, and invoke your own intelligence as evidence. Friend, I'm not buying it.

I've been watching that development from afar, ZeaLitY, and I must say now, this heavyhanded authoritarian approach almost had me quit the forums in disgust a while back - that is why I stopped posting for several months, in fact. I was utterly disgusted by what happened to what was supposed to be an intellectual forum.

You quit the forums way back when because of me, not ZeaLitY, and the reason you quit is that you couldn't beat me and couldn't stand defeat.

Or did you quit again more recently? That would look even worse for you, because in the past few months the Compendium has had some of the best and most intelligent conversation since it started in 2003. Do you know what I've noticed here lately? I can start a thread now, an intellectual thread, and it'll catch fire without my help. That's never been possible here before. I've always had to be present. Now I am a redundant quantity, and I can't tell you how gratifying that is. Would this be the atmosphere which so disgusted you? That would speak volumes about your character, and none of it flattering.

It's often seeming to me that the Compendium is becoming less a forum for open discussion and more ZeaLitY's smiting the wicked who disagree.

There is definitely a lot of smiting, I'll give you that. The culture which has taken root here is not a conservative one and not a religious one. It is a probing, thoughtful, forward-looking, humanistic one. Right-wing religious types would have a hard time flourishing here...although Thought seems to have done okay for himself...because his right-wing conservatism can work with the atmosphere we've got.

And frankly, man, and this must be said, if one speaks of fields of learning, of intellectualism, I, or Thought perhaps (sorry for bringing you into this, but you're the only other I know of as trained as I am), are far more actually knowledeable, and have been more exposed to varying fields of thought.

Heh. Thought is good. He's very cunning, and he's one of the smartest here. But none of that is actually relevant. The reason you've put him on such a high pedestal is that you are ravenous for the cover he provides. You do the same thing with your Greek friends from antiquity, or the great philosophers. You are so quick to use other people to support yourself. I know that all throughout history this kind of alliance-making was crucial to tribal politics, and perhaps you've taken your lead from history. But with you it seems like more than just a strategy. It's almost as if you haven't got the fortitude to stand on your own merits...as if you have no real power without others through whom to assert yourself.

You have invoked Thought on so many occasions. I understand that you would be genuinely glad that there is another right-wing Christian around the Compendium. That is very easy to understand, indeed! Yours has been a lonely faction here. The other right-wing conservatives at the Compendium are mostly idiots. But the ridiculousness with which you lift up Thought to the exclusion of the rest of us is just...well...pitiful. Thought is one of but many intellects here. You are blind.

But the frank fact is, your rants are nothing more than that: you have nothing to support them that would hold academic weight, you have no actual training, not in the sciences, not in religion.

If I were ZeaLitY, I would take that as a challenge. Don't get me wrong: At face value, your accusation is plainly ridiculous, if I may use that word again so soon. But there is something meaningful behind it: There is always room for improvement. ZeaLitY would profit well from bolstering his training, his exposure, and his experience. He continues to do so. His feminism class, for example, has been a great boon for him, and I have been delighted to see his knowledge on this subject expand.

I am drawing academic elitist rank on you.

I can't resist. I've held out for five pages, but I just can't pass up such a juicy opportunity. You're so superior to the rest of us, eh? Heh. Prove it.

Thought outranks you. FaustWolf outranks you. Ramsus outranks you. Radical_Dreamer outranks you. MsBlack outranks you—and he's only sixteen years old! Uboa outranks you. Zephira outranks you. A great many of the people here outrank you. I outrank you. ZeaLitY outranks you. You're not all that high up the totem pole. You're a Grecophile, Daniel. You know what happened to all those people who rose above their station.

Of all the people I named, no one other than myself would actually have the gall to make the kind of statements that you make. Even ZeaLitY doesn't (yet?) have the temerity to even try it. Me...I have no such compunctions. I know exactly what ground I am capable of defending, and, where it's relevant, I sometimes do point out that I'm the superior intellect in the room. There's no point in false modesty, after all, and I enjoy having earned the distinction. But for every one honest bloke like me, there are ten thousand pretenders...people who make claims they can't defend. People who put themselves up into the stratosphere as a matter of too much ego, or not enough. People who suffer from testosterone overloads, or emotional dependency. Daniel...it doesn't look good for you. I think that, rather than draw rank, you should try joining our conversations and participating maturely.

I've done some growing up myself in that regard over the past few years. This very post which I now write would have been effortlessly easy for me not to write. I knew that your rants fell flat; I knew that no one needed to say anything. ZeaLitY's own respones to you covered it just fine. There was no need whatsoever for me to butt in. In the end I decided to do it anyway, as a courtesy to you, because despite your best efforts I find you hard not to like, and I would like to think that if you are open-minded enough to give some consideration to what I have to say, then perhaps your presence here is worth keeping.

If it's a matter of ideology, then be on your way. This Compendium will never be a bastion for conservatism or for Christianity. But I don't think it's ideology. I think it's your own ego. We all have to come to terms with our own ego before we can truly grow up; many people never pull it off. You're still in the thick of it. But, it costs me nothing more than an hour or two of pleasurable typing to give you yet another opportunity to lift yourself up. It's the least I can do.

And frankly, ZeaLitY, a bit of historic studies would do you good. Understand that this debate between religious and atheists is not something that just recently arose. It has existed for thousands of years...

On ZeaLitY's behalf, thank you! I'll bet he never would have guessed!

How is that for fury? It has been gnawing at my liver for far too long, and this is but the broken levy.

=)

Good.

This is the thread for it.

We should NOT be anti- anything. We should talk about it. Discuss it. Not villify, not bring prejudice and bigotry into the matter, for any group.

Daniel...
It is you who created this distraction. The Compendium's discussions have been ongoing on many subjects for months now. You were always welcome to join in. You still are. The only requirement is that, if you want to play ball, you have to live with the score. Now, if what you want is for everyone to bow down to you, to your ideas, to your philosophy, and to your way of life, then we can't help you. But if just you want to play some ball...that is something we'd be happy to oblige.

I am certainly open to people questioning the validity of my belief...

No, you're not. Of all the things I know about you, some I know with great confidence and others with little more than suspicion and hunches. But this...this I am absolutely certain about. At this point in your life, you are utterly incapable of being open to “people questioning the validity of your belief” unless it comes through very specific channels determined strictly by you. Even then, it would necessarily be limited in scope and gradual in magnitude.

You are not open-minded. There is a very important difference between closed-minded people and open-minded people who have made a choice about something...but that difference can sometimes be subtle to spot. Not so with you. You have had every opportunity over the years to demonstrate your open-mindedness. Not once have you done so. You are extremely insecure.

Hatred, ZeaLitY, has no place in academics, no place in intellectualism.

Like you, ZeaLitY is not truly an intellectual. He's dogmatic, dynamic...he's not interested in cultivating ideas. He's interested in mining wisdom and developing it into siege engines against evil. The hatred he possesses is directed at the great injustices in our world, as he perceives them. Given the growing merit of his perspective, I think his emotions are warranted. I don't think there's anything wrong with assaulting religion. There are very few legitimate defenses of religion, and all of them are partial. Trust me when I say that I have looked! Do you think I enjoy being universally opposed to anything? I only do that when I have to. It would be so easy for me, or Z, to make concessions in the name of finding common ground. There would be so much more peace, so much more goodwill. But it's not worth it. Religion is rotten to the core. The few good things it can accomplish, can also be accomplished without it. Meanwhile, the evil things it can accomplish continually threaten to overrun the Earth. All those rapes and lynchings and stonings are not storybook fairytales. They're real lives, being destroyed...every day.

Peace and mutual respect is worth a lot, but it isn't worth that. Religion is an enemy of humankind and must be defeated completely. You can join in our conversations knowing and accepting that that is my position, and ZeaLitY's, and perhaps that of a few others here. Thought and FaustWolf are two people who are willing to participate even knowing where we stand on this. They are gracious to do so. Or you can take your ball and go home. It's your choice. But don't flatter yourself into thinking that ZeaLitY's passionate hatred of religion, or any of his other numerous passions, somehow fetters or disrupts the flow of intellectual discourse here. Perhaps it does sometimes cause a disruption, when ZeaLitY is off-form and causes trouble, but usually his points are clear and substantive. A lot of the fireworks are just his personal style. You can look past them. Unless you want to be an ass; then you can provoke dramatics by attempting character assassination rather than intellectual debate.

The reason people put up with ZeaLitY is not simply that he is usually right. It's that he inspires others and he does so intensely. He even inspires me sometimes. What is it about him that causes such anger in you?

Now, in the time it has taken me to write this, I see that both ZeaLitY and you have written yet further replies. I'm not going to address those just now. Instead...I shall post this forthwith!

[Mr Bekkler]

Why is it that only people from the U.S. are called Americans. There's a whole lot more America than just us. What if everyone from North and South America could be called Americans? In the sense that people from Spain and England and France can be called Europeans.

Would that be more united?

[Acacia Sgt]

Maybe for simplicity in reference?

I mean, those of Spain are called Spanish, from Canada are Canadians, from Japan are Japanese, and so on. But then, those from the United States are called...? I don't think it's possible.

[Lord J Esq]

"Yankees," of course. ^_^

[KebreI]

Thought outranks you. FaustWolf outranks you. Ramsus outranks you. Radical_Dreamer outranks you. MsBlack outranks you—and he's only sixteen years old! Uboa outranks you. Zephira outranks you. A great many of the people here outrank you. I outrank you. ZeaLitY outranks you. You're not all that high up the totem pole. You're a Grecophile, Daniel. You know what happened to all those people who rose above their station.

I am a very self centered person and posts like this make me want to create a "LOVE KEBREL" thread. Ya know, for the attention whore in me.

[Daniel Krispin]

Erotic elegy...? Is that anything like the Zombie Sex Party being advertised at my college right now? (I kid, I kid...though I am "morbidly" curious as to what an erotic elegy might entail).

Daniel, bear in mind that ZeaLitY has stated elsewhere that he is going through a process of personal growth and transforming the negativity he's previously drawn energy from into something more effective. It would behoove you to read that and understand that ZeaLitY's position isn't necessarily as monolithic as it might seem at first, or as it once might have been; you don't really need the over-bombastic element in your recent posts where an appeal to the sentiment ZeaLitY himself expressed in that earlier post would have sufficed. You might not have been around to see it back in September but I thought it was rather poignant and worth bringing up now.

Hm. Well, as I admited, I might have been taking an extreme stance... I am not good for having a level head at the start of an argument. Several others posting after me said the gist of what I wished in a more tempered and more accurate fashion.

Oh, and J, I wrote up a reply, but... well, honestly, it's not needful to post it. Contrary to your assertions, I'm not particularly insecure. Argument, to me, is typically to better understand myself, rather than to convince my opponents. As such, having thoroughly considered your statements, there does not seem to me a great need of posting them. Though you must know that I DID read them, and disagreed with the most. I will say that your tendency towards attempting to discern the opponents character and basing your argument on that is extremely flawed, and in part that's a great source of your errors. You expend ever so much energy attempting to create this massive monster, mostly wrong, that your final argument is against something imaginary.

Furthermore, just for clarity, I am neither a conservative (by your American standards), nor do my arguments bringing up the ancient serve any other purpose than proper citation for ideas that are not mine. After all, wouldn't want to take credit for ideas that aren't mine... nor should I speak merely on my own merit. Never seen a paper that does not cite others, and does not have an extensive bibliography. That's the academic standard, which I'm drawing off of. Not sure what you're seeing in this, but I'm just following standard intellectual procedure and honesty. Take what you will, there's no great motive here aside from that. My appeal to my own greatness (heh, that MUST be a logical fallacy, if not, we should add it to the list), was more of an attempt to brownbeat ZeaLitY in return; however, I think it a valid statement to say that I have more formal training in post-secondary than the vast majority here, unless there are a great number that have nine years of it. However, it is true this does not always translate into being able to make a good argument... and I never maintained that.

You must understand, especially due to the fact that RD has been able to on multiple occassions show me errors in my logic, it is not that I hold any antipathy towards my ideas being disputed, but rather the criticisms you give me, which I have typically found incoherent and irrational. It is your methods, not your ideas, that I find difficult. Please note this. Many of the things you wrote about me are, quite ironically, the selfsame things I would criticise you of. That you set these on me means that either we are all too similar, or else that you are, in constructing your myth of 'me', place upon this figure things you dislike in yourself and attempt to defeat it. The latter is appealing, but far-fetched, since many of the things you said about me might be true in small amounts, if not to the extent you said. However, I am ever directly honest, never a dissembler, and my emotions are straight plain. When I said I considered quitting the forums, I nearly did so. However, and this must be added to assure not all that you said was summarally dismissed: I have indeed out of hotheadedness done so before, and you are correct in saying that the Compendium has been rather more intellectual of late.

That's basically a condensation of my thoughts. Expounding on it further would have served nothing than to enflame the dispute.

PS
You have rarely judged me on the merits of my ideas; you have typically pre-judged me based on my faith and whatever other concept of me you have built.

Oh, and to whoever asked, nah, I don't think there will be any zombies. I'm actually not too good at erotic stuff, though I have some pretty good exemplars from Catullus and some Archilochus fragments. They are both excellent poets. I'd suggest to any that they read them, if they can... all short poetry anyway.

[alfadorredux]

ZeaLitY @4378: You know, I wrote a long and nuanced reply to this. Then I re-read your post
and decided it wasn't worth the trouble, because you're incapable of being rational on this
subject or engaging with my points, so I'm just going to say the following:

Hurting people never represents social progress. Ever. It can, very rarely, be justified
in the name of preventing a person from doing himself or others serious and immediate
damage, as in slapping a toddler's hand away from a hot stove, but that isn't the case
here. Establishing a false "you're either with me or against me" dichotomy doesn't represent
social progress either. But the truth is, you aren't interested in social progress. You
aren't interested in helping people. You're interested in riding your personal hobby-horse.
This makes you part of the problem. You are what you're preaching against--a
person who is using his irrational view of the world to hurt others. And you're doing it
deliberately, not from ignorance, which makes you worse than your opposition.

And now, I am going to bow out of this conversation, because you've succeeded in thoroughly
disgusting me. Congradulations--you've just demonstrated that you're a bully and a bigot.

[Thought]

Although it would be interesting to see if there's any videogame forum out there where the majority of participants identify as religious.

Given that there is a demand for religious video games, which produced things like Spiritual Warfare (a Zelda clone), I suspect there are forums out there just like that. But it is incredibly unlikely that any are like the compendium, as the compendium itself is quite rare as far as online forums go.

Yes, I nearly went on a Mormon mission. I was (and am) ordained as a Priest, which isn't quite on the level of priests in other churches, but is definitely above the status of deacon in a Catholic church, I think. I suppose if I had obtained the Melchezidek (sp) priesthood I'd be more qualified to speak, eh?

Or perhaps if you had a degree of some sort in world/comparative religions. They still give those out at secular universities. It is hardly difficult to find priests who aren't even passingly familiar with the religious concepts relevant to their own faith, let alone religion in general. It would be akin to asking the average American to discuss the finer points about Canadian history.

Though I didn't know you were ordained as a priest; that is utterly delicious.

Historical figures believed in God because 1) scientific rationality and skepticism was not at a level requisite to challenge the notion in European society yet, and 2) everybody did it as the cultural norm, and if you doubted God, you invited instant death. If born in today's society, these figures would have assuredly all been atheists.

Perhaps, but such is not so certain. "Scientific rationality and skepticism" were always at a level to allow intelligent people to reject religion. What has changed? Was it that evolution explaining how life developed? Unlikely, as evolution alone doesn’t explain the origin of life itself or the cosmos. Thus, if an individual would have been unwilling to reject religion because they couldn’t explain life, then they would have been unwilling to reject religion because they couldn’t explain the universe. Was it Newtonian physics, perhaps? Given that Newton saw it as a defense of God, that likewise seems unlikely.

It is curious that you are making this point as it is a very religious one; it is the God of the Gaps argument! If, in the present world, you can reject religion even without having the universe perfectly explained, then in the past world one could have rejected religion even without having the universe explained.

What has changed isn't in what is intellectually acceptable, but in what is fashionable. Just as you noted that in the past, the cultural norm was to be religious, in academic institutions (particularly the sciences), the cultural norm currently is to be non-religious. If the cultural norms were significant when Mendal was alive, then the cultural norms are significant now.

What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.

Not at all, as such a concept is self defeating. For example, I assert god exists without proof. You then assert that my assertion is bunk and justify your own assertion that because I provided no proof, you need provide no proof. I can then turn your own reasoning back upon you by asserting that your assertion is bunk because you provided no proof, and that I am excused from further justification through proof for the reasons you stated.

That which can be dismissed without proof can be asserted without proof.

It is unfortunately, but the responsibility of the intellectual is always to give proof. If you want to be lazy, that is fine, but reasoning requires hard work and due diligence.

Not to mention this idea of a 'dark age' is an absurd view that has been heartily dismissed these days. We did not lose our learning, and civilization was not reset... indeed, you are several decades - at the least! - behind in where scholarship is on such issues.

Thank you Daniel, you saved me the trouble of making that point myself.

...

Ah, well now that you've chimed in to defend Z, the circle truly is complete. It's nice that we do this every few months or so; traditions are so relaxing.

There's no real merit to your claim that you're as intellectual as you say, or that ZeaLitY is as ignorant as you say.

Unfortunately he is right, at least in one regard: Z has traditionally shown a stunning ignorance (or perhaps just misunderstanding, as those can often be easily confused) of the Middle Ages. The Medieval Period was an amazing time of social development and, yes, even enlightenment. Z claims that the Catholic cloistered knowledge; what he fails to understand is that it did not cloister but preserve. Celtic monasticism placed a high value on secular learning; the influence of that on the rest of Christiandom led monasteries to actively seek out, collect, preserve, and copy secular works. These works then formed the fuel that the spark of the Renaissance was able to feed off of in order to develop modern thought. Civilization did indeed stumble, but it was not because of religion; rather, the Roman Empire itself, through poor political and economical management, was degrading. As secular government found itself unable to support civilization, Christianity stepped in. If it was not for a violation of the concept of the separation of church and state in the Middle Ages, we would have no state today.

In this regard, I don't care if anyone believes that the teachings of religion are true or useful: the fact is, modern world owes its very life to medieval society. Take that out and civilization would have truly had a reset.

Please understand, this is not a defense of religion, but of Medieval History.

And frankly, man, and this must be said, if one speaks of fields of learning, of intellectualism, I, or Thought perhaps (sorry for bringing you into this, but you're the only other I know of as trained as I am), are far more actually knowledeable, and have been more exposed to varying fields of thought.

Heh. Thought is good. He's very cunning, and he's one of the smartest here.

Hey now, there's no need to fight over me, there is plenty to go around... you were fighting over me, right? That would be ever so nice.

You weren't? Nuts.

As a side note, thanks for explaining why you commented on Daniel's post. I was just getting curious as to why you felt the need to defend him -- since if what you were saying were true, he would need no defense -- when you answered my question without me asking it! Though… given your assessment that Daniel is only willing to have himself questioned on ground that he has defined, and given that you did not present your arguments in such a manner, isn’t that a bit self-defeating? It would seem that your actions and judgment are, to a degree, in opposition to each other.

... I understand that you would be genuinely glad that there is another right-wing Christian around the Compendium...

Given that I support evolution, I probably don’t qualify as a right-wing Christian anymore. Certainly, given the right circles, I’d be excommunicated for that alone, no mind my liberal-leaning stances on other topics.

Like you, ZeaLitY is not truly an intellectual. He's dogmatic, dynamic...he's not interested in cultivating ideas.

I am sorry as this statement is very likely to offend, but in truth, ZeaLitY is amazingly like George W. Bush in his behavior.

Before I get lynched, allow me to explain. Z behaves in a very direct, "dominance"-like way. If he sees a problem, he's going to run to solve it and he'll plow through anything and everything in his way. G.W. Bush did the same (focusing on a single goal and pursuing it without concern for the obstacles in the way, or other factors). A side effect of such a trait, however, is that often people either love you or hate you, there is a very small middle ground. Lucky for Z, he also behaves in a very "influential" sort of way; that is, when he sees a problem, he'll also try to gather people to help address the problem. But, barge first, recruit second seems to be the behavior he displays most often in the General Discussion area. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but one that can very easily put people off.

Such behaviors, however, are most diametrically opposed to people like Daniel and myself. We behave in a very steady, conscientious manner. When I see a problem, my first inclination isn't to charge it, it is to find out more, to gather information, and then approach the problem. Though, I tend to get easily distracted along the way, helping other people, other topics, etc. The problem is, people who behave in a dominant manner tend to step on the toes of steady people, and people who are focused on influencing others step on the toes of people who are conscientious.

Since I'm analyzing people in this way, you, Josh, seem to also behave in a dominant manner, but where Zeality is good at influence, you seem to be better at being conscientious. If Zeality succeeds, his success will be one earned largely by numbers, while if you succeed, your victory will be more of a one-man revolution.

If I haven't mentioned it before, the DISC behavioral assessment system is very interesting. Sort of like Myers-Briggs, but more useful.

Religion is rotten to the core. The few good things it can accomplish, can also be accomplished without it. Meanwhile, the evil things it can accomplish continually threaten to overrun the Earth. All those rapes and lynchings and stonings are not storybook fairytales. They're real lives, being destroyed...every day.

To note, all those evil things religion can accomplish, can be accomplished without it, and they still continually threaten to overrun the earth.

Might I suggest something to you and Zeality? Religion is a red herring.

If religion has no validity or truth, then its origin is a purely human origin, its faults are purely human faults. It is a symptom, not the disease. Of course, an arm riddled with Gangrene might just be a symptom of a larger problem; that doesn't mean you still don't need to cut it off. Perhaps, if your claims regarding are religion are true, religion does need to be eradicated. However, it is not because it is religion, but because it is riddled with human corruption. A doctor doesn't amputate an arm because he hates the arm, but because he hates the disease. The arm is just a step in the goal of curing the patient.

Perhaps it is just me confusing rhetoric and bluster for intent, but Zeality in particular appears to view the eradication of religion as an ends, not a means. If such is a true assessment, then such a perspective cripples his dreams of a better humanity. Get rid of religion, and the exact same problems will still exist.

To Z's credit, he is taking a wider view (as his current academics show) to address the other problems of humanity, but he still seems to confuse those problems with the problem of religion. Like Data working to save the life of his daughter, Lal; you can correct one failure, but others will pop up just as fast unless you can address the overall issue.

And hopefully comparing Z to Data will make up, at least a little, for me also comparing him to G.W. Bush. If not... well, I await the judgment of the Joshalonian Superior Court.

[Lord J Esq]

Daniel, you once again squander an opportunity to rise above your ignorance. It's a running theme with you.

I am not good for having a level head at the start of an argument. Several others posting after me said the gist of what I wished in a more tempered and more accurate fashion.

If by "several others" you mean one other, alfadorredux. This is another example of you bolstering your ranks without making any grand stand of your own, by appealing to others. If you would consider alfadorredux's type of remarks to be "tempered," then I don't see how you would fail to classify ZeaLitY's as just the same. Both are written with the same emotion of personal conviction. You don't think very clearly about these kinds of things, Daniel, do you? You just see everything as either supporting you or opposing you. The falseness of some of these dichotomies is part of how I know you're so insecure.

Oh, and J, I wrote up a reply, but... well, honestly, it's not needful to post it.

You posted a reply anyway, Daniel. I wonder if this other reply of yours ever actually existed. Perhaps you found it more convenient to simply refer to this phantom rejoinder, and then claim that you rejected it out of prudence, so as to set yourself up as being too "tempered" to participate in such childishness. Sure...

Now, with you, there is at least the possibility that you wrote something longer and then deleted it, as I've caught you doing that at least once before. So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here. But let me also give you some advice: It does not behoove you to go around trumpeting your supposed prudence to others in this fashion. That kind of prudence needs no acclaim. It is enough for you yourself to know that you did the "prudent" thing. By trying to get plaudits from the rest of us, by referring to the deleted reply, you have undermined any such credibility may have sought to demonstrate. And that's straightforward, 101-level stuff...the kind of stuff which demonstrates your anti-intellectual character whenever you ignore or deny it simply because it came from an antagonist.

I don't think he did so intentionally, but alfadorredux made both of you look foolish by using the same tactics so close together: Both of you said that you had written a longer response, deleted it, and went on to post childish tripe instead. With allies like those...

Contrary to your assertions, I'm not particularly insecure.

I thought about taking my original post to you to a private message, so that I could be more forthcoming than I have been able to be on a public board like this. I'm well aware that you're not one of those who would be likely to admit his own insecurities to a public audience. You may not even be willing to admit them to yourself, for all I know. I certainly don't want to mix valid criticisms with petty bullying. Your insecurity is relevant because it corrupts your ability to participate in mature conversation. You're always getting in your own way, and making a nuisance for the rest of us. That's why I don't hold you in the same esteem as many of the other people here, even though you could be smarter than most of them if you could only get over yourself. But I have no wish to make it personal, and I decided against trying to be your personal psychologist. Hence, my earlier post went here rather into a private message. When your emotional problems and intellectual shortcomings are relevant to the discussion, I will continue to point them out, but I won't make it any more personal than that. If you want to deny my "assertions," go right ahead. But when you undermine yourself, you will be called out on it.

Argument, to me, is typically to better understand myself, rather than to convince my opponents.

I think that is a lie. I'm not sure if I have ever accused you of an outright lie before, but needless to say it is uncommon of me. Perhaps you lie more often and I simply don't catch you in it. In this case, sheer dumb luck has worked against you: I myself have posted many arguments here over the years to better understand myself and others, rather than to flatly persuade my opponents. You are claiming the same thing of yourself now, and I can't easily tell you how false that claim rings. It's as if you were a bunco artist whose schtick is to fool people into thinking that you're a police officer so that you can swindle them out of money by writing fake tickets. Works great...until you try to put one over on an actual police officer. If you had made such a claim to anyone else, perhaps they would have bought it, because nobody else has tried to do what I have done. That includes yourself, mister. Most of your arguments here are purposed to demonstrate your merit, not to expand or refine it. To the extent you indulge yourself in your occasional tantrums against me, those arguments are pure juvenile delinquency...totally unbecoming of somebody who would lay claim to the intellectual life.

As such, having thoroughly considered your statements, there does not seem to me a great need of posting them. Though you must know that I DID read them, and disagreed with the most.

If you want my thanks, you can have them. But if you had not read my comments, you would have been on Truthordeal's level. It goes without saying that one should actually read another's comments before making a reply. That is below the minimum expectations of intellectually honest discourse. That you would even mention it is unflattering. You are not one who should ever flirt with the lowly status of a mook. For all your considerable flaws--and this is what I tried to say yesterday--you're not some penny ante operator. You have the potential of an elite. I just wish to high heaven you would actually use that potential one of these days.

I will say that your tendency towards attempting to discern the opponents character and basing your argument on that is extremely flawed, and in part that's a great source of your errors. You expend ever so much energy attempting to create this massive monster, mostly wrong, that your final argument is against something imaginary.

I don't buy it. You can ask everyone here who has been the recipient of my scrutiny or analysis what they think of my accuracy rate. I'm not perfect, of course--far from it--and I was not as good in years past as I am now, since my experience has grown and my perspective has broadened with time. Perhaps I've gotten a few specifics wrong about you over the years, but I know your personality type very well. By curious coincidence you share the first name of a roommate I once had, and who I got to know very well. You even look reminiscent of him: gaunt, scraggly, proud, unhappy. If you want to discuss this further, then PM me, since, like I said, I don't want to make this too personal. But you know, in the privacy of your own thoughts, much of what I would tell you from afar.

Furthermore, just for clarity, I am neither a conservative (by your American standards), nor do my arguments bringing up the ancient serve any other purpose than proper citation for ideas that are not mine.

This sentence is wrong on two counts. First of all, if you were to lay out your actual positions on the issues, you would satisfy my definition of conservative. I know this because you actually have laid out your positions, piecemeal, over time. Unless you are undergoing a rapid leftward sprint in your political ideology, you're a conservative. Why is that word so insulting to you?

Second of all, your appeals to other authorities go well beyond allusion and citation. Mentioning your liver; that's an allusion. That's good stuff. We both know that your liver is not actually the vessel of your frustration, but it's a great allusion. However, look at this other bit which you also wrote to ZeaLitY:

The wisdom literature of Ecclesiastes, the Cosmology of Genesis... even if you put no more stock into these than you do the Ennuma Elish and Hesiod, it can still be good. As, indeed, Hesiod IS good. Ever read, I wonder, the Titanomachy segment? No, I doubt it... else you might have a touch of an appreciation what a religious mindset can write, when possessed of an artistic spirit.

That's not an allusion. That's not a citation either. That's you trying to puff yourself up and look distinguished. That's another way in which you and I differ. Except for ancient Greece, I am at least as well-exposed as you are, if not considerably more so. But you don't see me appealing to my lifetime of sources. I fashion my arguments myself. If Sagan or Democritus or Machiavelli or even Jean-Luc Picard helped shaped my thinking, you'd only know it if you had studied them yourself, because I rarely make the attribution. You, on the other hand, are ever so quick to wrap yourself in the stoles of the many authorities you have encountered over the years. But it's always a bad fit with you, because you don't stand on your own. You hide behind the stole rather than live up to it...every time, Daniel.

After all, wouldn't want to take credit for ideas that aren't mine... nor should I speak merely on my own merit. Never seen a paper that does not cite others, and does not have an extensive bibliography.

That is a logical fallacy, the red herring. You don't write bibliographies in these arguments of yours, and I'm not talking about bibliographies in any case. Again you reveal the fakery of your intellectual costume. If you were the wise mate you claim to be, you would explain these countless invocations of yours. You would lay it all out. You don't do that. What you do is assert your authority without ever proving it, by invoking names with more integrity than your own.

I am the Great Daniel Krispin! I am of Herodotus and Kant! Defy me, and learn their wrath!!

"Bibliography" indeed...

My appeal to my own greatness (heh, that MUST be a logical fallacy, if not, we should add it to the list), was more of an attempt to brownbeat ZeaLitY in return...

I think you're telling it straight here. That would be the first instance. How many sentences into your reply are we?

I think it a valid statement to say that I have more formal training in post-secondary than the vast majority here, unless there are a great number that have nine years of it.

If you've actually been in college for nine straight years, then, yes, it would seem likely that you have the best formal academic credentials here...which would make it all the more surprising that you flop around so badly in these arguments.

I've had less college education than you, but I think I've gotten more from it. Nor have I neglected my education outside of college. If you've got a wall full of degrees and certificates, then I offer you my envy, Daniel. But I've met enough people with extensive college education to know that the degree or even the attendance itself is an unreliable indicator of a person's excellence of character and strength of mind. Most of the frauds go through business or law school, but I've also met frauds who went through the humanities. I live in Seattle, remember: a city full of hipsters, literateurs, poets, musicians. I've met 'em all. When it comes to a lucid mind, most of them are as much of a letdown as the white trash of Alabama. Imagine that.

You must understand, especially due to the fact that RD has been able to on multiple occassions show me errors in my logic, it is not that I hold any antipathy towards my ideas being disputed, but rather the criticisms you give me, which I have typically found incoherent and irrational.

Radical_Dreamer isn't confrontational like I am. He lets people defeat themselves. He traps them with uncomplicated questions that force them to expose their ignorance or bigotry. Radical_Dreamer's strategy is very effective, but also very limited in scope. To expose some people, one  has to chase them. It isn't enough to give them the tools with which to discredit themselves, because they won't build the gallows on their own. His style and mine are very different. My reach is much broader than his, but it also earns me some ire and unpopularity, much as you yourself are now demonstrating. RD doesn't make waves; I do. That's the difference between him and I.

I've shown you errors in your logic, too--far more than RD has. But you deny them because you are unable to accept them from me. RD is benign, non-confrontational, huggable and kissable. You don't find him threatening because he has never accused you of being a fraud. He has provided you, on occasion, with a neutral environment for you to demonstrate this yourself...although I must say that your fraudulence isn't nearly as glaring when you are involved in a friendly interaction. Only under wilting criticism do you reveal your logical weaknesses in ugly totality. This presents a problem: If you are not challenged, you will not learn much. Oh, you'll grant a few concessions here and there, and perhaps eventually you'll get to trust the RDs of the world enough that you might give some actual consideration to their more serious criticisms...but you'll never really have to confront your intellectual deficiencies. On the other hand,  if you are challenged, you will seize up and resist everything. This is a serious problem for you, because it has hampered the expansion of your mind.

You would call me incoherent and irrational? What do those words even mean to you, that you could possibly ascribe them to me? Perhaps sometimes when my posts are written in haste and with minimal editing afterwards, they are not as clear as they could be. That might conceivably lend itself to the extreme of incoherence, but I would hope I've never stumbled that badly. If I have, it's been a rare bird. And irrationality? That's just plain ridiculous. Your definition of "irrational" must be "a challenge to Daniel Krispin." No one who isn't insane or mentally impaired can be truly irrational, but, as far as the reverse goes--rationality--I don't think there's a single more rational person at the Compendium. Maybe MsBlack. Surely not you.

It is your methods, not your ideas, that I find difficult. Please note this.

I'm well-aware that you don't like my tactics, probably because they get results and force you to confront the problems in your life that you can otherwise persuade yourself not to see.

Many of the things you wrote about me are, quite ironically, the selfsame things I would criticise you of. That you set these on me means that either we are all too similar, or else that you are, in constructing your myth of 'me', place upon this figure things you dislike in yourself and attempt to defeat it. The latter is appealing, but far-fetched, since many of the things you said about me might be true in small amounts, if not to the extent you said.

We are alike in many ways, and quite different in many ways--including a few in which we are diametric opposites. We are alike in that we are both observant, intelligent, visionary, philosophical, creative, driven, strong-willed, and so else. This is another reason that I tried for so many years to fit you into the mold of an intellectual: Not only did you claim the title for yourself, but your similarities with me made it seem likely. But on the whole we're not really so similar, because our differences are striking. Your comment is quite revealing. You have committed projection many times in the past, often taking the very same criticisms I direct at you and reflecting them back at me. Occasionally you have given this a twist by anticipating my criticisms and sending them at me before I even get the chance to make them. Defense mechanisms are taught pretty early on in the psychology curriculum, and I have always taken note when you use them. You have occasionally made valid criticisms, but usually they are defensive in nature, not logical, and thus seldom accurate.

I too used to have confidence problems, and emotional maturity issues. For one reason or another, I resolved most of that in my childhood or adolescence. By this point in time I am almost totally comfortable in my skin, except for my terrible difficulty with completing my most ambitious projects. I could only guess where that comes from; perhaps a fear of success. I don't really know. Other than that, however, I am completely at peace with myself. It can sometimes be hard to tell if a person is at peace with themselves, but it's usually very easy to tell if they're not. You're one of those tortured souls...very unhappy, and either restless or self-loathing. I know you will dismiss this as "imaginary" just as you have always done, but your acknowledgment isn't important. It is only important to point out the sheer differentness between us in this quality, because when you accuse me of the failings of which you yourself are guilty, not only does it frustrate me as someone who is trying to win an argument and improve someone's life, but it saddens and embarrasses me to see you so deeply in the grip of denial.

The story of life is such a grueling one; most people get a bum rap from the start because their brains never open up to the light, or they are born into a world which has no opportunities to offer them. Even the ones who have opportunities and can begin to figure it all out, must still confront their emotions. Who can take it? People wash out, wimp out, burn out, bow out, flunk out, flip out, sell out, space out, drop out, die out. There aren't many who can say that they triumphed. Some religions have put it off into the afterlife--happiness, that is. Others have made it the unattainable pinnacle of human existence, theoretically attainable but in practice closed to everyone. Take your pick, Daniel, because today you're just one of the masses in the fire. I can see that. So can you. So can anyone who has the brass and the brains to look for it.

When you set up that dilemma, suggesting that either we are much alike or that your failings are actually my own and I am the one who is projecting, you unwittingly corroborated everything I have said. Let me repeat your words once again:

That you set these on me means that either we are all too similar...

...many of the things you said about me might be true in small amounts...

Do you see what you've done here? You have either reflected my criticisms back at me at the cost of acknowledging their validity, or you have been unable to sustain a perfect denial in the light of my criticism. Possibly both! No, Daniel, I am not projecting. You are, and you need to come to terms with that, because you're a waste of a human being until you do. "Small amounts" does not even begin to expose the flaws in your character. I stand by all of my criticisms in their full intensity. I don't go around tossing slander for fun, you know. If I say something, I have a reason. You frustrate me so much because you could so easily be one of our merry band. But you won't let yourself. You can't get over yourself. You don't know how to live with yourself. The fact that you have a severe Lutheran background is not a coincidence. Your father's impact on you explains a lot of your intellectual prevarication and mendacity. Having been raised into an intellectual world, that is what you have come to know...but you don't know it. You are kept from knowing what it is to really be an intellectual...and the person holding you back is you yourself, Daniel Krispin.

However, I am ever directly honest, never a dissembler, and my emotions are straight plain. When I said I considered quitting the forums, I nearly did so. However, and this must be added to assure not all that you said was summarally dismissed: I have indeed out of hotheadedness done so before, and you are correct in saying that the Compendium has been rather more intellectual of late.

I don't feel the antipathy for you that I did in years past. If you want to stay here at the Compendium and contribute, that would be great. But by squandering yet another opportunity to rise above your ignorance, the degree of my desire is blunted. Why don't you make a decision for yourself, and we'll live with the consequences?

Thought, as for you, I see that you've made a reply to me. I haven't got time for it now, but I hope to come back to it later.

[GenesisOne]

Lord J, as you have seen a recurring pattern from me, I too have seen a recurring pattern from you.
The first being that you take small blurbs of sentences written by anybody trying to defend their position and turn it into an impressionistic rant that rivals the length of your average essay (3-5 pages, given MLA format).  The mindset which you equip yourself with while going into such debates is as follows:

“Okay, I don’t agree with them, and in order to validate that, I’m going to find everything that’s wrong with their statements and expose their flaws and logical fallacies, because that’s the same as refuting an argument made by my obviously ill-informed opponent(s).”

Yeah, and I’m Mary, Queen of Scots.  Just because I (or anybody else here, for that matter) don’t answer your essays with equal length as you right away, it doesn’t mean that we’re not “defeated.”  A debate may be a battle of wits, but you treat them like we’re dueling egos, and when we fail to respond in such a manner as you, you raise your mental Claymore triumphant and start assigning shortcomings.  I got news for you: credibility isn’t measured by one’s word count.

The second being that you take any studies or papers from experts on the subject that we present to you and disregard them with the same mindset from above, because to you, even with their advanced degrees and years of experience, their reputations mean squat to you.

Why do you think such people are called experts in the first place?  Was it because they made educated guesses and theories that came true out of sheer dumb luck?  Was it because they went along with the scientific norm, inserting their own bits of sophistic originality to make it look like original research? Not in a million years.  They earned their reputations because they studied the facts, researched the experiments, collected the information from the results, and found it along with their peers to be, time after time, consistent with the observational data.  How else do you earn the name expert in a chosen field?  Not by throwing random theories to the wind.

More to come…

[ZombieBucky]

im frustrated that this argument hasnt been moved to its own thread yet.

[Lord J Esq]

“Okay, I don’t agree with them, and in order to validate that, I’m going to find everything that’s wrong with their statements and expose their flaws and logical fallacies, because that’s the same as refuting an argument made by my obviously ill-informed opponent(s).”

Do you actually have an objection to this? Yes-or-no question. I want to make sure that I haven't misunderstood you, since if the answer is "yes" then I'll know that your future credibility in all subjects is exactly zero.

Follow-up question: How does one "refute" an argument if not by pointing out its flaws?

Just because I (or anybody else here, for that matter) don’t answer your essays with equal length as you right away, it doesn’t mean that we’re not “defeated.”  A debate may be a battle of wits, but you treat them like we’re dueling egos, and when we fail to respond in such a manner as you, you raise your mental Claymore triumphant and start assigning shortcomings.  I got news for you: credibility isn’t measured by one’s word count.

Who was talking about length? Hey, sometimes it takes me a while to say what I want to say. I've never said that I'm credible because I write the longest posts. I'm credible because my posts are always long enough to be thorough.

The second being that you take any studies or papers from experts on the subject that we present to you and disregard them with the same mindset from above, because to you, even with their advanced degrees and years of experience, their reputations mean squat to you.

Ah, I get it now. You're still sour grapes about the global warming thing. Remind us, GenesisOne: To which "studies or papers from experts" were you referring? Because the only references I remember you providing were that laughable anti-global-warming site, and that petition of global warming skeptics in the scientific community.

You pointed us to a video that was obviously a propaganda piece, and I invited everyone to go look at it for themselves...and you're still bent out of shape about it. Mook. You were defeated on the facts. Live with it.

[Thought]

Come on, why must there be all this fightin' n' feudin'? If there is one thing we can all agree on, it's Crono: he has punk-rocker hair.

Now, let's all join hands!

Kum bay ya, Masato Kato, kum bay ya;
Kum bay ya, Masato Kato, kum bay ya;
Kum bay ya, Masato Kato, kum bay ya,
O Masato Kato, kum bay ya.

[FaustWolf]

Yeah, we're in serious need of some Obama-style diplomacy here. That involves beer and lawn chairs. And given the proximity to Halloween, possibly braaaains.

Anyway, it's obvious why Krispin had some explosive posts back there: it was literally his Day of Lavos. If Lavos were to type up a series of Internet posts, it would probably look like the last couple pages of the Frustration Thread. Now, the planet can hopefully rest for 14,000 years before it happens again.