Does it take an intellectual to knock God??

[SB_UK]

one ~ wage

[SB_UK]

"corrupt politician" 110,000 hits <- power
"corrupt lawyer" 28,200 hits ..<- money
"corrupt priest" 15,300 hits <- sex

... ... ... so who you gonna' trust?

[SB_UK]

..........

[arthur]

Hi, Arthur.

Your perception of my posts does not correspond with my intent (as seems to be the case with many others), and your criticism of editing is...I was going to say, unfounded...but, have settled upon, curious.

Anyone could mischeivously induge in the now-famously-censored, lengthy and highly descriptive verbal account of your personal fettish for anal effluvia. It's what stops the majority (at least in this forum) from doing so, that is more worthy of note.

Of course, you can continue in this vein for as long as your peers, and Robert, wish to tolerate it. The only motives I can see are anarchistic arrogance and provocation directed at individuals on a personal level.

Now, Arthur, don't misinterpret me...here, I'm being simply frank and pragmatic, so please don't overwrite your inclination toward emotionalism. The anwser to "does it take an intellectual to knock God" is:

Who cares? Unless I could be assured of your best-intentions toward your fellow man, nothing you say could be considered worthy of my attention.

[SIZE="4"]Well lesky I am at the moment in the process of making gooseberry jam and so have a little time to spare.

I assume that your post permits' me to comment publicly on your interference with my posts and your role as a censor.

(in the now-famously-censored)

Not so very famous because it was withdrawn before the public en mass could read it.

(highly descriptive verbal account of your personal fettish for anal effluvia)

Now come on lesky if in fact you are as you claim you are, being frank which I assume that you do understand means honest, you will admit that the post in question in no way what so ever could possibly be construed as a description of my or of any kind of fetish when in fact it only gave a variety of descriptive terms and explanations for one of the words that you censored from my post namely the word that goes with bull and which means arrant nonsense, (what in reality your post was) The reason that you claim you censored it was because you defined it as bad language. Now, in my "fetish" letter I pointed out that in non of the major English dictionaries, the word in question was considered to be "BAD."
I pointed out that in my part of the world the word is in very common use. Only today I asked eight of my neighbours to tell me another word for the cow, horse, donkey, sheep, pig, chicken, duck, goose, rabbit, hare and dog excrement with which we country folk are surrounded and not one of them knew an alternative to the word that you considered as "bad language".
Earlier I asked my neighbours daughter to look on the web to find the badness in the use of the word and after page after page she found a couple of personal opinions confirming it's badness including the following

'However, a search on the Domain Surfer database shows that more than 500 top-level domain names containing the word "shit" have been registered in the past few days
NSI has barred racial and religious epithets in the past. Last year it granted six of those domains to civil rights groups'

and many more like it. I don't know anybody who would consider the term that I used as "Bad language" (and lesky what ever you do, do not look under S in a Japanese dictionary) So what is your criterion for "bad language"??

My psychologist friend from Oregon, the one who suggested that you had been googled by accepting its dictionary (which stupidly and laughingly suggests that junkies and pot heads would find it an offensive term for their junk) He suggested, after reading all of your posts in this thread, that perhaps the reason you censored my post was not because of the two words that you called "bad language", which would have offended absolutely nobody but as an act, either of pique or maybe as a demonstration to me that you are in this position of power. He suggests that your decision to write to me would have certainly been un or subconsciously motivated and he asked what other reason could there be?

Now lesky, let us be frank, just to remove two inoffensive words from my post to replace them with the word "whatever" was not at all necessary, even if they were what ever bad language is. I honestly do have doubts as to veracity of you claim which leaves Bills suggestion seemingly a little more plausible.

I do agree that "the" letter should have been withdrawn, but even here lesky, to have it withdrawn by a moderator as being 'off topic' when he does nothing to curtail the continual Tourettes like stream of off topic posts which are obviously intended to prevent the actual topic being broached I suggest that this could be construed as selective and bias censoring.

Now to "your personal fettish for anal effluvia".

I am at a complete loss to understand what kind of analysis you did to determined from 'that' letter that my personal fetish was to do with anal smells (I might ask my friend Bill if he has any ideas how you came to that conclusion, mmmm, it might be interesting)

Now lesky will you explain why I have been treated so shabbily with the overt and the tacit encouragement of the "moderators"??. Why is it that you allow all of the inaccurate accusatory comments from one person to pervert the reality of this offensive situation??. Why is it that you moderators put pressure on me with such inaccurate and provocative posts as this one and the threat to close the thread?? Does the fact that I am an innocent party not concern you.

After reappraising your roles as moderators of this thread can you not understand why I have absolutely no faith that, on no more than a whim, you or the other moderator will invalidate the essence of, the effort taken and the time spent preparing and posting to the thread a response, either by censorship or alterations to spelling or punctuation, in fact, just "unjust" interference with my posts??

Now lastly lesky, and this may be the most important aspect of this post and here I am genuinely not being pedantic and definitely not being rude But; I have a great deal of difficulty in understanding much of what you write, for example in this post what does
"so please don't overwrite your inclination toward emotionalism" and "Who cares? Unless I could be assured of your best-intentions toward your fellow man, nothing you say could be considered worthy of my attention" mean??

The part about your 'attention' I glean to mean, that you are not interested in the thread--to whit-- if I am correct I would ask, why do you contribute?? The other parts I cannot even glean a meaning.

I come from a world where people express as clearly and as concisely as they can what they actually mean, otherwise we find that there in no point in saying anything. Of course, I am quite capable of imbuing a correspondence with innuendo and implied meanings. I can also imbue a correspondence with sarcasm and irony as a response to being subjected to sarcasm, irony, stupidity and rudeness and even when having my posts interfered with, when I am feeling silly and facetious, as was the case, with what you called, "the now famous censored post" which to any body who is not psychoanalytically anal was just a bit of facetious silliness to illustrate that 'my' use of the term b/s could not possibly be construed as "bad language" by anyone who did not have a ulterior motive.

Is it your role as a censor to prevent, criticise or harass my polite responses to gratuitous nastiness and rudeness? Is it your role as a censor to prevent, criticise or harass my polite responses to the illogical, inaccurate, snipes which are obviously intended to be provocative and to subvert the value of the subject? OR Is it the role of a censor in a forum like TQ to encourage, facilitate and moderate the flow of logical, rational debate on peoples chosen topics? If this is the role, how one manages to do in a field of bigotry, aggression and emotional hysteria I am not sure BUT I do know that sending the innocent (me) posts like the one that I am responding now only exacerbates the situation. Think, 600 odd posts and how many related to my proposition, other than my own?? Lesky, if I am correct on what you role is it seems to me that you should re-evaluate you position.

CONT:
[SIZE="4"]

[arthur]

Hi, Arthur.

Your perception of my posts does not correspond with my intent (as seems to be the case with many others), and your criticism of editing is...I was going to say, unfounded...but, have settled upon, curious.

Anyone could mischeivously induge in the now-famously-censored, lengthy and highly descriptive verbal account of your personal fettish for anal effluvia. It's what stops the majority (at least in this forum) from doing so, that is more worthy of note.

Of course, you can continue in this vein for as long as your peers, and Robert, wish to tolerate it. The only motives I can see are anarchistic arrogance and provocation directed at individuals on a personal level.

Now, Arthur, don't misinterpret me...here, I'm being simply frank and pragmatic, so please don't overwrite your inclination toward emotionalism. The anwser to "does it take an intellectual to knock God" is:

Who cares? Unless I could be assured of your best-intentions toward your fellow man, nothing you say could be considered worthy of my attention.

CONTINUED

BUT; lesky, What an absolutely unproductive waste of time all of this is.

So; WHY did you post your letter? What was the reason or the point?? Why didn't you expend some of the effort, energy and thought you put in to your letter in attempting to encourage productive discussion of my proposition? Could it possibly have been because it would have been less fun?

Was the reason for your post, as I hope that it might have been, that you felt a need for just a little light relief and some inspirational entertainment? OR, That you wanted to, (I was going to say appease but have opted for) encourage, your peers/fans to continue this sort of competitive banter, maybe in the hope of undermining some aspect or other of my personality or something, for reasons unknown. If I am correct, yet again, and you do feel competitive I honestly do not mind if you win and if being patronised goes against your emotional grain and you want to continue contact with me the resolution is simple, just keep your posts ON TOPIC.

and very lastly, why do you think, If in fact you have, that I have put in so much time, effort and energy, spent the hours of my time typing posts in a genuine and honest attempt to encourage debate and discussion on a subject that I feel is extremely important. Do you think that it is because I am lonely and need human interaction? Do you think it is because I want to massage my intellectual ego? Do you think that it is because I want to show the world (via TQ?) how clever I am? You know? Lesky it might just be possible that I am motivate by my love of and concern for the survival of mankind.
That was lucky, just as I had finished, the gooseberry jam is ready for bottling.

But please try and muster at least a smidgen of good will towards me and answer my questions.

..arthur..
[/SIZE]

[labelwench]

Perhaps, Arthur, as you have yourself alluded on more than one occasion, this is not the appropriate forum.......

Kind regards,

Labelwench

[arthur]

Perhaps, Arthur, as you have yourself alluded on more than one occasion, this is not the appropriate forum.......

Kind regards,

Labelwench

Well lorrina, yes I have suggested on a couple of occasions that perhaps TQ is not the venue for presenting an original observation and original analysis on something which would require honesty and open mindedness to even come near to understanding it and also, maybe, not the venue to expect rational and again honest and polite criticism, you know the sort of thing Lorrina, But as you very well know lorrina non of this transpired.

It was obviously not my intention to crash the personal party of the one (or two) persons domination and control, in spite of their lack of interest in the subject matter, of virtually every thread posted in TQ, although I was forewarned that because of this my attempted would certainly fail. It was obviously not my intention to create the ludicrous emotional hysteria that developed amongst, maybe, half a dozen people?. This surprised not only me but surprised all of the people who have been following what I am doing. It was also obviously not my intention to disturb the former harmony of what retrospectively appears as a kind of bizarre social club or social mob which can only survive on disgracefully "dishing out" the things which do not fit in with "treating others as you would expect/want/hope/like to be treated"

Of course I feel a little sad that I succumbed to the inveiglement of trying to interest, who in my naivety, I believed to be rational people only to receive almost no intelligent feed back.

Although the 'forewarners' insist that I am wasting my time I find it hard to believe that, in spite of the diminishing number of posters that there is not a core of sensible and honest people who make no pretence about knowing everything there is to be known about every thing who are interested in non pretentious, non contrived, just for the sake of posting, in plain, simple 'non ambiguous pseudo "scientific" language' who would be interested in trying to or actually understanding, through debate, not only my proposition but a great number of propositions and ideas.

So you can see Lorrina irrespective of the abysmal and spiteful way that I was treated by a small clique, it does not represent the whole of TQ but is just the result of allowing people the freedom to be what they are intrinsically like. Because I don't believe that all people are like this I am not sure if or not T.O.E. Quest is an appropriate forum for an important proposition that is a precursor to the presentation of the non religious Universal Law which absolutely every thing must abide by, which I feel could be called a theory of everything.

..arthur..

[Mohan.C]

Hello, Arthur.
What is your proposition? if you've already posted it, please provide a link. I'm interested in reading it.

[racecar]

Honey vs. vinegar...a sweet victory, eh?

[SB_UK]

Hello, Arthur.
What is your proposition? if you've already posted it, please provide a link. I'm interested in reading it.

noooooooooooooooooooo!

(see Prof Pat (as, I think the first of the many to ask just *that* question)
on page 3
of this thread).