Town Quixote's

[bybee]

Hopefully the stent will be one of those inserted with local anesthesia through a vein in the arm.

AMR

Depends on where it needs to wind up. Agreed on the "hopefully" though!

 

[Town Heretic]

Hopefully the stent will be one of those inserted with local anesthesia through a vein in the arm.

Depends on where it needs to wind up. Agreed on the "hopefully" though!

I don't pretend to know much about it, though I know my uncle had a stent a few months ago and it's done wonders for him. Dad has been tired of late, but he's so active I thought it was just him overextending. He's getting on in years and he spent the day before out on his acreage doing work. The night before that Jack had stayed over and I assumed he was in need of a rest.

It's frightening, but it appears that everything is going as well as could be hoped for. He was transfered to another hospital for the night and procedure tomorrow. My wife took Jack to see him, which was good for both of them, apple and eye.

The rest is in God's hands. I appreciate the concern. He's a very, very good man, my father. God bless him and God bless all of you who've nudged or commented in consideration.

 

[bybee]

I don't pretend to know much about it, though I know my uncle had a stent a few months ago and it's done wonders for him. Dad has been tired of late, but he's so active I thought it was just him overextending. He's getting on in years and he spent the day before out on his acreage doing work. The night before that Jack had stayed over and I assumed he was in need of a rest.

It's frightening, but it appears that everything is going as well as could be hoped for. He was transfered to another hospital for the night and procedure tomorrow. My wife took Jack to see him, which was good for both of them, apple and eye.

The rest is in God's hands. I appreciate the concern. He's a very, very good man, my father. God bless him and God bless all of you who've nudged or commented in consideration.

Blessings TH to you and yours!

 

[journey]

Town,

Your father will be in my prayers. I have two stints that saved my life. It's a safe procedure because it's done so often and for so many people. I fully expect things to go well, but I'll pray anyway.

 

[patrick jane]

:freak:

hopefully not

I'm a dummy, if somebody told me to spell stint I would say stint. I didn't know for medical use it's spelled stent. :idunno:

 

[ok doser]

I'm a dummy, if somebody told me to spell stint I would say stint. I didn't know for medical use it's spelled stent. :idunno:

that's why i responded the way i did - with a gentle, humorous nudge toward correction

instead, it was seen as a horrible violation :idunno:

 

[Town Heretic]

that's why i responded the way i did - with a gentle, humorous nudge toward correction

instead, it was seen as a horrible violation :idunno:

You're a liar, of course. Friends give gentle nudges to friends. You're an obsessed stalker no one would confuse with that particular and your history speaks plainly enough on the point.

If anyone buys this pile you're attempting to shovel they're either as stupid as you are disingenuous or they're in denial. In any event, it's partly my fault for not still having you on ignore from the last time you said something ignorant and malicious.

So I'm locking you out of this one. You'll have to obsess elsewhere. And if what I'm seeing happened during the month I was away is any indicator, that's exactly what you'll do...but like I said a while ago, you still have to wake up being you and I get to wake up being me, so all things considered, I can live with that happily enough.

Now go press your nose to the glass and talk about me elsewhere. Hopefully I won't be seeing more than a note about your status in ignore from here out.

Shoo. :wave2:

 

[Town Heretic]

A momentary pause for the catch-up, a bit longer than usual:

The Blue Moon Gazette​

Defended a coach set on the side line for a post game prayer...

Again, your argument for lack of coercion is that no one is complaining.

You're mistaken, or just misstating. It's more than that, as I noted by the apparent freedom and want of concern his student-athletes feel as some participate and others don't. That or he does a horrible job of coercing his players. A coach who wants or expects his players to be in that prayer will have them there. And were that the case, as I said, I'd have a different response.

Here's how the school district is couching it now:

Spoiler

"While attending games may be voluntary for most students, students required to be present by virtue of their participation in football or cheerleading will necessarily suffer a degree of coercion to participate in religious activity when their coaches lead or endorse it," Bremerton School District said.

Well, attending games is entirely voluntary, though that shouldn't be the point, as are both cheerleading and playing football. The point appears to be what constitutes the "degree of coercion" and "suffering" and whether that belief is reasonable.

That's wrong since students and teachers are complaining (that's how it came to be an issue in the first place).

Which students? Which teachers? The 17 year old who doesn't play on the team but who invited the circus and declared:

Spoiler

"The main reason I did it is to portray to the school district that I think we should either have a policy that we're not going to have any religious affiliation or public religious practices, or they should say people are going to be allowed to practice their religion publicly whatever their beliefs. They need to either go black or white."

And he sums the problem, if not in the way he means. Extremists are running too much of the reason and reasonable out of the public square, on either side of the equation. No, it doesn't have to be all or nothing in terms of balancing religious liberty against restrictions of the state. It only looks that way to the fringe.

...It's absurd to expect students to be able to attend public schools and get an education that's free of religious indoctrination? What exactly do you want? Taxpayer-funded religious schools?

Someone saying a prayer at midfield after a football game, a prayer no one is required to join and which some students choose to forgo, apparently without concern for their position on the team is now, in the hypersensitive lexicon of the radical mind a "religious indoctrination"?

It's that ardently unreasonable approach that endangers the reasonable.

Happened upon a thread called "Nudie Town" and...

Thank goodness this thread isn't what I thought it was and I won't be having to explain any missing Polaroids from long ago...that's a relief.

There was a larger, longer discussion about rape and whether or not God would condone it...really...

Your saying it doesn't make it so.

Right, which is why I've done more than that, noting that no one has a legal right and that the practice itself is immoral, evil, and as Jesus said when the religous leaders of the day suggested evil was doing good, a house divided against itself cannot stand. Just so, God, who is wholly good, cannot do evil.

There is a standard. Reap what you sow. Psalm 28:4

It's a standard. But it isn't one that justifies or sanctifies rape, which remains evil and contrary to God and the good.

I go so far as to say that if God allows a stripper to be raped, it can be exactly what she needs to turn her from the path she was embarked on.

God allows/created us with free will. Going beyond that is the road to that dangerous assumption Job ran into. Or, "Fred cut his leg off with a power tool...I wonder why God let him do that."

God can't use the evils of ungodly men to punish us?

What I said was that God wouldn't condone rape as a punishment, that he punishes those who rape and that to suggest God is okay with rape in any particular is to set Him against Himself.

While elsewhere...

I see we can welcome back Town Heretic. Evidently he didn't really flounce out of here but rather went off and completed a 34 day semester somewhere.

I love how even when you get a thing right you still get it mostly wrong.

Meanwhile...

I believe God allows exactly what you claim He would never "condone".

I think "allows" gives an impression that God is fine with it. I don't think God is ever fine with that which violates His nature.

Job was not guilty of stripping, nor is a murdered child guilty of anything, so your "examples" are so far out they aren't worth addressing. You're tossing out distractions...nothing more.

No, I'm not. Job wasn't stripping is missing a point I stated pretty directly. Again, Job's friends thought his misery was his own fault, that God was punishing him (maybe one of them even thought God was simply allowing him to be punished for his misdeeds). And your approach is similar to theirs, can lead to that sort of mistaken assumption. Job wasn't reaping what he sowed. Job wasn't being punished for his transgressions.

I'm afraid you're insisting on looking at this from the perspective of the humanist.

Why on earth would you think my noting God and Christ and the moral problem here would smack of humanism? Because I've spent more time on that than I have on the cut and dried right/law examination. It would be the oddest form of humanism I've ever heard of...

(It's the wages their bad behavior has earned.)

Judgement is the wages, death. Not rape. That's just an evil man working his will. It has nothing to do with God's justice.

So Quet mulled prior deeds and...

So, I have been thinkin... I have been in pretty mean spirits recently. Taking jabs and creating threads that I am not at all proud of. I want to try to make amends and try to be better.

Man. Gone a month and everyone goes crazy. Well said and it sounds like a plan. Me, I'm angling for a no hold's barred patellar reflex marathon, but to each his own.

And Rusha said...

:chuckle: Considering the current standard of civility and treatment of others by some, your behavior has been exemplary.

But as Daniel Boone was want to say, "That's not much of a bar, is it..." lain: Darn foniks.

Then our resident evangelical ambassador neatly chimed in with...

The only thing I want to hear out of your secular humanist mouth is that you've accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and God's Word as the absolute Truth. When you do that, you can unblock me.

Well boys, we just lost another one. lain: See, incentive is when you give someone reason to actually do the thing you want them to do.

Continuing with advice by yours truly...

For me it boils down to patience. Many times, I find myself knee deep in a debate only to realize that we agree.

Consider yourself lucky if that's all you're wading through.

While in the big NFL thread things were not so easy for Aimiel...

WhoDey

And the Blowzits?

Back in the rape thread...

That God allows suffering is a fact.

Who'd argue it?

The term allow is perfect...it's speaking of His permissive will.

It's misleading, given you could as easily say the murder of infants is God's permissive will.

God doesn't desire our suffering just for suffering's sake, but He allows it for good reasons.

Where I'd say suffering is part of the fallen world we inhabit and while God may intercede the workings of that world don't flow from His desire, but from our disobedience.

Said hello to the new guy...

Hello all,

I am looking forward to sharing and learning Truth here.

An optimist. Well, give it time.

Welcome aboard. Mind the bridges you burn. A few of our regulars live under them. :noid:

Then Crucible tried the ol end around...

Accountability for rape does in many instances belong with the victim because they are fully aware of the potential situation they put themselves in.

It's a bottomless pit of nonsense. Someone could tell the near half of women who are raped in their homes or the larger number raped by people they knew and thought trustworthy that they should have had a better home defense system or been more suspicious of the people they think they know well enough. When you want to blame the victim you can always find something.

But it's the criminal who is responsible for his conduct. He's a predator, without meaningful empathy. He's broken and/or evil. And he's singularly responsible for what he does absent significant mental defect that bars him from understanding his actions.

If I get drunk and go on some odd trajectory one night in which I end up in jail, there is no 'drunk card' that can be played.

Right. You're responsible for your actions. Like a rapist. Like anyone who breaks the law without justification.

There's just anathema for the perceived transgressor,

Percieved transgressor? Rapist. Someone who literally forces or by threat of force coerces a woman into sexual congress against her will. He's not a perceived transgressor, he's someone who should be in prison until his equipment stops working. I mean all of his equipment.

When you're an adult, it's time to buckle down with reality.

The reality is that a rapist has no excuse and a victim doesn't need one.

Then, after responding to the humanist nonsense one too many times, I came about as close to being outraged (in this case, head shakingly disappointed) and...

...which is more proof you're a humanist.

Humanists reject God. I only reject poor arguments.

Do you think our being conformed into the image of Christ is done without our suffering? Think again.

You should probably wait for an answer before you decide how to respond to the thing existing only in your mind.

The cross isn't there to catch us when we fall.

I wrote fail. The cross is there because we fail and willfully, because we will not satisfy the law and failing are doomed in judgment by it. Thankfully, Christ has met our insufficiency with His abundance.

...Your examples are nothing more than an attempt to pull a rabbit out of a hat.

Only if the hat is lined with Jesus telling us about divided houses or telling the mob with stones to stand on their conviction. That sort of hat.

Surely you can do better than that, counselor.

I not only can, I have. The question I'm considering now is if you can.

Ask Paul if I'm wrong for asking the Lord to reward the slut for her bad behavior.

Slut? Reward her? Put that stone down, glory. You're only going to hurt yourself with it.

Tomorrow? A sixty percent chance of rain. So break out the rubbers (no aCW, no). :nono:

 

[Town Heretic]

Another momentary pause for...

The Friday Morning Gazette​

So Cruc decided the rape thread was too one sided...much like rape statistics, and...

That's pretty much how I see the people who perpetuate the subject of this thread and why I take issue with it. It always becomes about this stupid, redundant rehashing of how doing anything to a woman is wrong and what men should think or do about it.

In this case, it's actually how raping a woman is wrong and how anyone with two brain cells to rub together should understand that. And the people who perpetuate the topic are rapists.

Forget you, forget women who think that way, and anyone who is inclined to agree with them. That's not misogyny, that's calling a specific group of self-loathing men and subtly man-hating women.
I think that'll be my last contribution to this thread :wave:

Finally, something for everyone to appreciate. lain:

Then daze continued to unburden herself...

Not too smart, Town, you left something important out. Rape remains a sin, but so does stripping.

Who said stripping wasn't a sin? Not I. I said rape isn't a punishment for stripping and it isn't.

...Not once has anyone said the "one who is raped bears any responsibility for the violative act".

You do when you say the rape is a punishment for the act. You forge the association. Because if she's being raped as punishment for her immoral act then the responsibility is established prima facie. There's literally no other rational posit.

And...

...I don't even need to read past the first line or two to see you don't have one single thing worth reading.

You've said something like that a few times now. Which is funny when you consider it....

Then...

The motives you ascribe to me are so out of touch with reality, that I'm literally amazed.

You make up so much you'll have to quote the motive part so I can distinguish it from the general fiction you have a tendency to create in your own mind, like the humanist bit. [She never did]

Once someone donkeys down, they have too much invested to ever admit there is another side, much less that they might see the point.

Unlike changeable you? Why if I had a nickel for any difference between what you wrote there and your own conduct...I'd need a nickel.

You simply refuse to believe that. You REFUSE to believe it. That's on you, Town. I'm actually embarrassed for you.

It's that enormous empathy of yours, I suppose.

Chimed in to update on the fate of Calvin and Hobbes in the "funnies" thread...

Ah, I miss that kid [Calvin]. Most people don't know it but he's pushing forty now and manages a Denny's in Bangor. Two kids, a three pack a day habit and an ex-wife. He's lost a little hair and put on weight, but he's doing what he can, I guess.

Me? I'm spending a lot of time in a storage facility in Eddington. Best way out would be if he keeps putting off the fee and I end up in a picker's hands.

Life.

That led to...

My girl friend's son is three, I have seen some very well made Hobbes plushes on Etsy. It very well might end up under the tree this year.

Or you could make your way to Eddington and make a bid. Seriously, it's dark in here and something smells like ham (no, I'm sure it isn't me). :shocked:

Before daze called my asking the question, "Who's we?"...

I believe that's called "leading the witness".

That's the spirit. Don't let a lack of qualification slow you down on the point. :thumb: No, that wouldn't be leading a witness, though it does appear to be inciting the witless.

It also a good example of "selective" quoting.

Well, you were bellyaching about my replies being too long. Now it's "selective". You said it. It isn't unclear (the equal sign is a dead giveaway) and I literally wondered who he meant by "we".

So...lain: Nice hat. What's the soup like?

Meanwhile...

...Only to a pompous fool. That's nothing. Admit to misusing God's word and you'll be doing what needs to be done.

I can't admit that cheese is a mineral.

The math "illustration"? You mean the silly comment that I can't add? Wow, you're a clever little guy, aren't ya?

Apparently too clever, since the point of the joke wasn't that she couldn't add, but that we can know things about God without encompassing Him. It was in the wake of the His ways are above our ways consideration.


6 created a fictitious town where...

The city of Ormiston in Alberta Canada has banned Santa Claus since it is representative of the religion of secularism. City mayor Bill Lamberton has forbidden all other religious symbols also, and in recent years nativity scenes were outlawed.

The mythical city of Ormiston, made national headlinea 3 years ago when librarian Judy Gieni was jailed 5 days for defying the law by placing a christmas card on her desk with the nativity scene on its cover.

Do you think the city of Ormiston, is being too politically correct? Is it ok for this city to ban all Santa displays?

No. Santa isn't a religious symbol, he's a symbol of commerce wrapped in good feeling, like one of those Hallmark card commercials. And are we to infer from this that Ormiston is not in a "dry" county? lain:

Leading to...

What's wrong with that town ? When and why did this start ?

I think it happened right after the town barber got his liquor license. lain: Then the "Stocking Purges" began. Brutal, cold winter that year.

And...

Bah Humbug!

Nope. They even outlawed the Bah Humburgers at Nick's place and made him change his suspicious name...also, flowing white beards have been forbidden and a monthly shave is now a part of the city ordinance...male or female (and there was some resistance from the P.E. teachers union on that one, I can tell you). lain:

...Last week they closed the public golf course over reports of excessive invocation of the deity on the green (though mostly just off of it). lain:

Tomorrow? A fight breaks out in the cafeteria... lain:

 

[Town Heretic]

A fiend of mine was arguing against allowing Syrian refugees into the country because of his concern that some of them might be violent jihadists. He said the potential for loss of human life outweighed our standing principle regarding offering safe haven for people in legitimate fear for their lives. He wasn't happy about it, but believed, strongly, that we had a greater duty to protect our citizens.

I asked him when he was going to apply that foundational approach to guns.

Silence. . . an internet miracle.

 

[Town Heretic]

See, I don't even need a flower with petals. No idea what it said, but it loves me.

 

[ok doser]

A fiend of mine was arguing against allowing Syrian refugees into the country because of his concern that some of them might be violent jihadists. He said the potential for loss of human life outweighed our standing principle regarding offering safe haven for people in legitimate fear for their lives. He wasn't happy about it, but believed, strongly, that we had a greater duty to protect our citizens.

I asked him when he was going to apply that foundational approach to guns.

Silence. . . an internet miracle.

:think:

on the one hand, you have an option to allow into our country foreigners who might act with criminal intent

on the other hand, you have an established legal right to own firearms and use them legally, including uses intended to dissuade those who wish to act criminally



I suspect your "friend" was silent because he was too busy doing this:

the stupid, it hurts

 

[Town Heretic]

Ok Doser Thread number: 21

My posts/total posts in his thread

0/550 On Rape
0/539 On Deservedness
0/53 Questions for Anna
0/88 On Cripples
0/21 Christmas Wishes
0/24 Call Out Thread
0/13 (Faux) Observations thread
0/5 A spam thread
0/9 (faux) Anyone Who
0/13 Anyone Who...
0/113 No Means No
0/56 Should We Be
0/90 on Horific
0/20 On Genetic
0/63 Prayers for Anna
0/62 On Responsibility
0/182 On Cowards
0/86 Supreme Law
0/13 Greetings
0/34 Is Rape Always
4/74 Welcome to the Dominant Culture's Holy Month


Yeah, I'm not proud of responding in the thread aimed at a goofy stab at something I wrote a long time ago, but now compare that grand total and thread interest/involvement with, say, my newest thread that he rushed to copy.

In the only recent thread I've created, Observations, doser has already posted 15 times.

He's posted 34 times in Quixote's alone.

And that's not beginning to count the number of posts about me in any number of threads. lain:

 

[Sherman]

There is the option of just placing the member on ignore and don't look at his posts. The conflict between you two will die down if you do that. Don't post about him either. The owners here really frown on maintaining locked threads. It defeats the purpose of dialog. Doser himself has been warned in the past about maintaining locked threads.

Instead of locking the thread, place the people that are annoying on ignore. Locking the thread down so others can't participate is the wrong approach.

It is really bad form to post about doser than lock the thread.

 

[Town Heretic]

There is the option of just placing the member on ignore and don't look at his posts.

That's mostly what I've done. I took him off a moment ago because I was considering responding to a thing I saw mirrored, but I thought better of it and won't be.

The conflict between you two will die down if you do that.

I admire optimism, but that hasn't been my experience over, literally, years of him stalking me here through various incarnations. I think it's pathological with him. This isn't about a difference of opinion. It's about his methodology.

It's so bad that even though Knight tends to agree with him on arguments he's had to ban him and warn him off.

Don't post about him either.

I mostly don't and haven't. Now and then I get tired of it and give him a shot across the bow.

The owners here really frown on maintaining locked threads.

Knight has publicly said he liked this thread and it hasn't changed since it was Observations.

But if he's given you a different message, if you guys want me to abandon the thread I will. A lot of people like it, and it gets about four thousand views in most months when all it really amounts to is the Gazette, but it's a good bit of work and I don't make a dime off of it. So if he's changed his mind just let me know.

It defeats the purpose of dialog.

Quixote's is mostly aimed at aiming people at debates going on elsewhere. It was never meant to be a thread where we doubled down on the same debates. Again, Knight knows precisely what it is and has endorsed it. All he has to do is tell me he's had a change of mind on the subject and I'll shutter it for good. No harm, no foul. It's his house and I respect that.

The lockdown wasn't about avoiding debate, something I've never been noted for avoiding, but about allowing people who mostly stop by to read the Gazettes to do so without having to pick through efforts to spam and bury it under posts about toenails and the like or fake links, etc. A while back I decided that instead of complaining to mods I'd handle it myself. And it's worked. He's unhappy, but he still gets to post after the grace period and people who mostly come for the Gazette get a chance to read it without the bother.

Doser himself has been warned in the past about maintaining locked threads.

He's never had to lock a thread to keep me from spamming it.

It is really bad form to post about doser than lock the thread.

Is it on par with turning a stressed keystroke error in relating my father's heart attack into a joke? Is it on par with stalking and a litany of personal attacks in lieu of substance?

I didn't post some insult to doser then lock the thread. I publicly set out my objectively demonstrable lack of engagement and interest in his threads. I've noted that in just two threads, omitting his other incarnations, the difference is fairly remarkable.

:e4e:

 

[bybee]

That's mostly what I've done. I took him off a moment ago because I was considering responding to a thing I saw mirrored, but I thought better of it and won't be.


I admire optimism, but that hasn't been my experience over, literally, years of him stalking me here through various incarnations. I think it's pathological with him. This isn't about a difference of opinion. It's about his methodology.

It's so bad that even though Knight tends to agree with him on arguments he's had to ban him and warn him off.


I mostly don't and haven't. Now and then I get tired of it and give him a shot across the bow.


Knight has publicly said he liked this thread and it hasn't changed since it was Observations.

But if he's given you a different message, if you guys want me to abandon the thread I will. A lot of people like it, and it gets about four thousand views in most months when all it really amounts to is the Gazette, but it's a good bit of work and I don't make a dime off of it. So if he's changed his mind just let me know.


Quixote's is mostly aimed at aiming people at debates going on elsewhere. It was never meant to be a thread where we doubled down on the same debates. Again, Knight knows precisely what it is and has endorsed it. All he has to do is tell me he's had a change of mind on the subject and I'll shutter it for good. No harm, no foul. It's his house and I respect that.

The lockdown wasn't about avoiding debate, something I've never been noted for avoiding, but about allowing people who mostly stop by to read the Gazettes to do so without having to pick through efforts to spam and bury it under posts about toenails and the like or fake links, etc. A while back I decided that instead of complaining to mods I'd handle it myself. And it's worked. He's unhappy, but he still gets to post after the grace period and people who mostly come for the Gazette get a chance to read it without the bother.


He's never had to lock a thread to keep me from spamming it.


Is it on par with turning a stressed keystroke error in relating my father's heart attack into a joke? Is it on par with stalking and a litany of personal attacks in lieu of substance?

I didn't post some insult to doser then lock the thread. I publicly set out my objectively demonstrable lack of engagement and interest in his threads. I've noted that in just two threads, omitting his other incarnations, the difference is fairly remarkable.

:e4e:

I am stunned by the blatant bias of this call by Sherman.

 

[ok doser]

I am stunned by the blatant bias of this call by Sherman.

that seems disrespectful :think:

 

[bybee]

that seems disrespectful :think:

I AM NOT INTERESTED IN YOUR UNCTUOUS BROWN NOSED COMMENTS....

 

[Town Heretic]

I am stunned by the blatant bias of this call by Sherman.

I think she's never cared for thread locking and I'm not offended. I'm not wild about it either, but absent someone controlling his trolling...so I did feel obliged to note that Sod has been given a fairly free rein in the place, that his routine offenses would seem, to my mind, a bit more disconcerting than a locked thread to give him one less space to do it in for a few hours.

 

[glorydaz]

I think she's never cared for thread locking and I'm not offended. I'm not wild about it either, but absent someone controlling his trolling...so I did feel obliged to note that Sod has been given a fairly free rein in the place, that his routine offenses would seem, to my mind, a bit more disconcerting than a locked thread to give him one less space to do it in for a few hours.

Lots of people (if not all) are given a fairly free rein. Bybee has been given a very loose rein, and quite often runs full speed without check.

I find it more disconcerting to be talked about without even having a chance to respond, no matter how witty the one doing the talking may think he is.