s0crates Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 I'm glad somebody brought up Christmas and Easter. I can't find anything in the text about decorating trees or bunnies giving out eggs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 JMS, While I agree that Persian influences were a powerful force in the evolution of Judahitism into Judaism, you are overstating the role of Cyrus as the primary catalyst for this change. Cyrus wanted to re-establish a Jewish state in the Levant to provide a buffer and an ally against Egypt. The term meshakh or messiah did not have the religious overtones at the time that you want to ascribe to it. It simply meant annointed to rule, and was a designation applied to all the successors in the Davidic line. Essentially, it was a principle not unlike the divine right of kings. Yahwists did not believe, however, that kings should exercise authority over religious matters. This is clear in the denunciation of prophets over kings, and kings' reluctance to punish them for their diatribes. That Hasmoneans took over both the throne and the office of high priest was seen as a blasphemy by the most observant Jews like the Essenes. You are using the later Christian definition of messiah to try and paint some kind of religious authority afforded to Cyrus, but this is an anachronistic interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 I thought we were already in agreement you don't have an open mind. What you don't seem to understand is that it is possible to have a bias and maintain an open mind. In point of fact, recognition of one's own biases is, I would argue, essential to maintaining an open mind. I am not going to do this with you again. Your "reputable sources" consisting of a few unverified, out of context, two line quotes on the personal website of some guy who teaches electronics at the community college were soundly refuted in the previous thread. I did notice that you didn't attempt to cite the actual reputable source you cited in the last discussion, livius.org, probably because you remember that mardi gras skin and I ended up repeatedly quoting it to show you why you are wrong. Again, as mardi gras skin and I showed you, and as Riggo-toni alluded to in his excellent post, it is impossible to establish any kind of definitive influence, in any direction, because while we know Zoroastianism probably existed in some form in the time period you want to establish the link, the actual beliefs you keep quoting as parallels are quoted in texts from the 9th century CE, which is far too late to be useful, and the contemporary accounts we have, those of Herodotus, don't sound anything like the parallels you want to draw. In point of fact, the only thing that annoys me about Riggo-toni's post is that it was so short and concise, yet effective. I've been trying to reduce my multi-page novels, lately, but my obsession with detail and thoroughness keeps running away from me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 JMS, While I agree that Persian influences were a powerful force in the evolution of Judahitism into Judaism, you are overstating the role of Cyrus as the primary catalyst for this change. Cyrus wanted to re-establish a Jewish state in the Levant to provide a buffer and an ally against Egypt. The term meshakh or messiah did not have the religious overtones at the time that you want to ascribe to it. It simply meant annointed to rule, and was a designation applied to all the successors in the Davidic line. Essentially, it was a principle not unlike the divine right of kings. Yahwists did not believe, however, that kings should exercise authority over religious matters. This is clear in the denunciation of prophets over kings, and kings' reluctance to punish them for their diatribes. That Hasmoneans took over both the throne and the office of high priest was seen as a blasphemy by the most observant Jews like the Essenes. You are using the later Christian definition of messiah to try and paint some kind of religious authority afforded to Cyrus, but this is an anachronistic interpretation.   OVERSTATING? All I said was there was influence... I think I said the specific influence was debatable...especially doctrinally..... but influence is not debateable...  I didn't OVERSTATE anything.  I was trying to take baby steps. What you don't seem to understand is that it is possible to have a bias and maintain an open mind. What you don't seem to understand is it is literally impossible to have both bias and an open mind....  The term meshakh or messiah did not have the religious overtones at the time that you want to ascribe to it. It simply meant annointed to rule, Moses predates Cyrus and he was annoninted... so does Saul, and King David... The annointed of god was the highest praise for old testiment leaders... The most influencial... The greek for annointed is christi or Christ... That's how Cyrus the Great is represented... speaking for god, speaking with god, doing god's work on earth... As far as influencial goes... as I said, doesn't get more influencial than that company, or that title. Cyrus is the only gentile in the bible to be given this mantle... so again.. hard to overstate his influence.... and my burden of proof from Tech-boy was to just show influence... which I think I did... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 What you don't seem to understand is it is literally impossible to have both bias and an open mind.... I'd like you to reflect on just how silly this statement is. While you're doing that, perhaps you'd like to ponder the contrast between that position and your most recent personal website citation, because if you click on "webmaster" at the top of that page, you arrive here, where your "reputable source" writes: God is unitary or One and has no sons, relatives etc. God is neither male nor female as we understand it, but perhaps has "sides" of both. God transcends Creation and is beyond time and space from the material universe we inhabit. Thus God doesn't inhabit matter nor is matter in God. I reject all forms of New Age nonsense such as pantheism or panentheism. Conflating God with matter is defacto atheism regardless of how good it feels. The soul is immortal and the next life will be contingent on our conduct in this one. (Classical Deism, Judaism, etc.) God alone as creator and sustainer of the universe is to be worshipped alone. Worshipping matter is nonsense. God does not perform magic tricks or suspends the laws of physics - God has no reason to guiding the universe as is. God is present and active in the universe, but is non-controlling. Humans have free will and the ability to choose their own path within limitations of the world we live in. I reject wholesale concepts such as Original Sin, eternal damnation, any form of Satan or a Devil, prophecy, etc. The idea little children killed by abortion or die as infants are going to burn in Hell for not converting to Christ is repugnant and irrational. Do you detect any potential biases? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rebornempowered Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 Do you detect any potential biases? Â Yes, and I also think he may be the love child of Pelagius and Arias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 Moses predates Cyrus and he was annoninted... so does Saul, and King David...  And Jehu was anointed by Judahite prophets because they wanted a coup to end the Omride dynasty and its supremacy over Judah from the north, and the same with every other king in Judahite history.  You're actually making my point in some ways, while presenting a straw man argument that somehow I thought Cyrus was the first.  Likewise, your insistence on pointing out that christos is the Greek translation of anointed is re-emphasizing my contention that you are trying to impose the latter 1st century definition of messiah over its understood meaning from the 10th to 5th centuries. Yes, Cyrus is presented as doing God's work by the Third (or is it the Second)Isaiah, just as Jeremiah consistently referenced Nebechadrezzar as being a tool of Yahweh - in that case as a means to punish the Judahites to bring them back to Him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 What you don't seem to understand is that it is possible to have a bias and maintain an open mind. I'd like you to reflect on just how silly this statement is. They are antonyms. they are words with oposite meanings... You literally can't be open-minded while having a bias... Which is what I meant by literally... Not subject to debate.. You are biased, you are not open minded.. you are open-minded you are not biased.. Your position is a violation of the fundimental laws of nature, not to mention English language... which mirrors the logic of your argument. http://thesaurus.com/browse/open-minded  While you're doing that, perhaps you'd like to ponder the contrast between that position and your most recent personal website citation I didn't quote the website, I quoted the people sourced from that website.. I quoted a phd from Oxford who pioneered modern theological study. (Ninian Smart) A professor of polical phylosophy who taught at Oxford, Harvard, and Yale (John Gray) An Archiologist/Historian from the University of Chicago who trained at Yale with his phd from University of Berlin. (James Henry Breasted) American rabbi, and Holocaust survivor (Leo Trepp). They are all reputable sources and they all disagree with you. I note you aren't questioning the bible sources.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain James Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 The idea that Christianity doesn't focus on being/doing good seems far-fetched to me. The sermon on the mount, for example, makes no sense if we assume Christianity does not involve morality. Becoming a Christian is a matter of the heart. It is based on the true transformation of the heart with accepting that Christ came and paid the penalty of death for us. "Doing/being good" should naturally flow from someone who has given their life over to the Lord. Jesus' two commands were to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind" and to "Love your neighbor as yourself". If those two commands are followed by someone who has truly put their faith in Christ then it SHOULD lead to outward behaviors and living a lifestyle that glorifies God. Who said Christianity doesn't focus on being good? It does very much focus on it but we are not saved by it. I hope this clears things up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 You're actually making my point in some ways, while presenting a straw man argument that somehow I thought Cyrus was the first. While I'm happy I was able to help you make your point... please do share, cause I'm not certain what your point is... I thought we were in agreement that the persian king who rescued the Iraeli race from exile and slavery, who is mentioned prominently in the bible many times, and who subsequently repatriated the Jews to Israel, appointed prophets at their great temple, which he rebuilt... and is mentioned with the same words as King David, Moses, Saul, Simon and Jesus in the bible, does wheld a little influence.. some. Â Likewise, your insistence on pointing out that christos is the Greek translation of anointed is re-emphasizing my contention that you are trying to impose the latter 1st century definition of messiah over its understood meaning from the 10th to 5th centuries. Again while we could go into a discussion of the meaning of Messiah I'm really not attempting to go there. All I'm saying is it was a term used for men of great influence in the bible. Both prior to Cyrus, and after Cyrus... That the word took on a new meaning for christians and Jesus is irrelivent.. The change in definition had less to do with influence and more to do with how the fovor of God would exhert itself. Â Yes, Cyrus is presented as doing God's work by the Third (or is it the Second)Isaiah, just as Jeremiah consistently referenced Nebechadrezzar as being a tool of Yahweh - in that case as a means to punish the Judahites to bring them back to Him. You have a nimble mind sir. but I'm not sure where you're going here.. The burden here was extreamly low... influence!... You've already admitted you agree the Persians influenced the Jews... who could not... other than techboy.... That's all I was going for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 The idea that Christianity doesn't focus on being/doing good seems far-fetched to me. The sermon on the mount, for example, makes no sense if we assume Christianity does not involve morality. The largest and oldest Christian traditions ( Catholics and Orthodox Christians) believe in doing good works as a means for salvation. Jesus did good works soooooo... The Protestants some of whom do not see good works as a means towards salvation typically don't tell folks not to do good works, they call it a demonostration of their faith, but they don't see the good work acts themselves as a means towards salvation. As a doctrinal question it's not really much fun to debate it beyond understanding why the various groups hold their positions.. Typically it's because the bible informs each there positions are correct, in different passages.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
endzone_dave Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 The largest and oldest Christian traditions ( Catholics and Orthodox Christians) believe in doing good works as a means for salvation. Jesus did good works soooooo... The Protestants some of whom do not see good works as a means towards salvation typically don't tell folks not to do good works, they call it a demonostration of their faith, but they don't see the good work acts themselves as a means towards salvation. As a doctrinal question it's not really much fun to debate it beyond understanding why the various groups hold their positions.. Typically it's because the bible informs each there positions are correct, in different passages..  I think the person who doesn't love God, doesn't love his neighbor, doesn't go to church, doesn't pray, doesn't feel sorry for his sins, and does no good acts of charity but believes he is going to Heaven simply because he believes that Jesus is the Son of God and died on the Cross for our sins is putting his soul in great jeopardy. I'm sure that person could whip out a few isolated Bible versions to prove me wrong (there are many more that prove he is wrong) but I wouldn't be willing to take the risk that person is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 I didn't quote the website, I quoted the people sourced from that website.. Let me see if I understand correctly how this works. I have an acknowledged bias*. This means that even though I present careful, logical arguments, supported by meticulous research and painstaking citation of a variety of experts, I can be safely ignored, as can the reams of information and positions presented by the experts I quote. The community college teacher has an acknowledged bias. However, his poorly written article with two sentence quotes (that might or might not be accurate and/or in context) is to be accepted as the gospel truth (pun intended), because you think it proves your point. Is that about right? *Just for the record, if you could demonstrate that Judaism had its theology influenced by the Persian captivity in some specific way, I wouldn't care. Christian theologians have long embraced the idea of progressive revelation, and the idea that spiritual truths could be revealed through the Persians wouldn't bother me at all. What I did (and do) object to is that, despite your disingenuous claim that you only argued that the Persians influenced the Jews (and if that really was all, that thread would never have gone 800 posts), you attempted to claim specific parallels and influences that you cannot support. That you were claiming more than you now pretend is fairly obvious from the fact that Riggo-toni spent some time debunking your claim about dietary laws. Do you now want us to believe that he just started talking about that randomly? ** I did not address the rest of your arguments (again) for two reasons: 1. They have already been soundly refuted, and I see no reason to do it again. 2. You have already declared that anything I say is worthless, so there is no reason for me to waste any more time on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 In this post you have constructed a narrative which is coherent, plausible, and according to the best scholarship, totally wrong. I have to admit I'm puzzled as to why you feel comfortable admitting that you neither care much nor know much about the topic, yet are willing to "reason" your way to a different conclusion than the vast majority of actual scholars. To be fair, this approach is hardly unique to yourself. If a poster tried to insert a "reasoned opinion", no matter how plausible on the surface, on one of a variety of other topics such as trickle down economics, climate change, or (perhaps most appropriate given the thread on the first page) the age of the Earth, he or she would receive immediate push back from just about everybody. Somehow, when the topic is history of religion, that standard is relaxed. You'll probably even get likes and/or posts in agreement. Actually I feel quite justified in doing so. Unlike the alleged God, my life and time are finite. I don't have time to become an expert in everything. Nobody does. So does it follow that only the "experts" get to have opinions? If you think this is the case, I'd say that unless you're a professor of divinity, you don't have any more standing than I do to provide an opinion. The best any of us can do in areas in which we aren't experts is to take in as much information as we can (or in my case, as much as I'm interested in) and try to form a reasonable opinion based on a reasonable amount of evidence. IMHO, in the case of at least a few religions I've done that. Moreover, I'm in good company as many of the scholars who actually have devoted their professional lives to the study of Christianity and other religions over the years decided on atheism or agnosticism or weren't moved from that opinion if it was previously held. For there to be disagreement about that fundamental point by people who have spent even more time studying this stuff than you have says to me that my position isn't irrational at the very least. However that brings up yet another criticism I have about most religions. If God exists and his ego requires worship from the inferior beings he created, why mask the faith in so much "stuff" that it requires one to be a full-on scholar in order to have enough information to develop an informed opinion about it? Â Let's start with the easy one. Nothing "changed". There were tensions and a split between Jesus and his followers and the Jewish authorities of the day from the very beginning for two reasons. 1. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah. Second Temple Judaism expected the Messiah to be a military leader that would cast off the oppressors of Israel and lead it to glory. Jesus clearly didn't do that. 2. More importantly, Jesus claimed to be God. As Edwin Yamauchi writes in Jesus, Zoroaster, Buddha, Socrates & Muhammad: Â In claiming to be Messiah, Jesus made himself a threat to the Roman state. In claiming to be God, Jesus was seen as a blasphemer and also a threat to the Jewish religious authorities. This is why he was killed. This is also why there was a split and tension between early Christians and Jews from the very beginning. These tensions are visible in the narratives of the various texts of the New Testament. Â Actually, I'd argue that as a Jew, Jesus wasn't just seen to be a heretic, he was one. The primary tenet of Judaism was and remains its monotheism. For someone to claim to be God pretty much takes the cake, nevermind all the arguing back and forth about how Jesus and God are somehow one. I understand that Christians have twisted themselves around to believe that but I don't so we'll just have to disagree. Regardless of either of our opinions, from the standpoint of Jews then and now, it was heresy. In spite of the fact that you say it's ludicrous to think Jews would accept syncretism yet they were willing to allow this group of (heretical) Jews and even Gentiles to remain within the fold of Judaism until some later time. In other words, they were willing to compromise on their strict monotheism to allow a sect started by a heretic claiming divinity to remain in the fold of Judaism but they wouldn't allow other changes or differences in belief to come into the faith? Sorry but you can't have it both ways. It's sort of like Bahai's contention that they're a sect of Islam when a central tenet of the faith is that Mohammed was the final prophet. They're welcome to that belief but it immediately puts them outside the fold of Islam. Â Now back to your other main point. This view is simply not supported by the historical record. One of the most clearly attested to and agreed upon facts about Jesus is that he was seen as a miracle worker. That doesn't mean that historians necessarily believe that the miracles actually occured, but it is well outside the mainstream to argue that the miracles were added to the story later. The "biggie", of course, is the Resurrection, so let's look at that as a specific example. In Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present: What are Critical Scholars Saying?, Gary Habermas writes: Â If you know Bart Ehrman, you know that he is an agnostic who has been in debates about the historicity of the Ressurection, arguing against, so it's not like this is an issue of theological bias. Or, Michael Grant was an eminent classical historian, and in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, he writes on page 176: Â This was not a later addition, as you theorize. It was something Jesus' followers really believed happened. I accept that they really believed it. I just don't accept that that's what actually happened. If historians doubt that Jesus actually performed some of the miracles attributed to him, then what does that say of the reliability of the Bible? If these accounts of miracles weren't added later, then when were they added? Finally and most importantly, can I really believe the "biggie" if there's doubt about other miraculous works attributed to him and when his own prophecy about the end time didn't come to pass? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Let me see if I understand correctly how this works. I have an acknowledged bias*. This means that even though I present careful, logical arguments, supported by meticulous research and painstaking citation of a variety of experts, I can be safely ignored, as can the reams of information and positions presented by the experts I quote. The community college teacher has an acknowledged bias. However, his poorly written article with two sentence quotes (that might or might not be accurate and/or in context) is to be accepted as the gospel truth (pun intended), because you think it proves your point. Is that about right? Not entirely... You see it was a revelation to you that people with bias and agenda's don't have open minds... So I guess it will also be a revolation to you that such people don't craft arguments, methodical or otherwise.  They don't craft anything. To craft an argument would be to consider the other persons side. It would be to engage in a discussion.  It would be an intellectual exersize. Folks with agenda's and bias don't engage, don't converse and don't think. There is no thought involved in making up your mind before any discussion occurs... before you are even aware of the other guys points.    You see since you've acknowledged a bias and an agenda Post #74... That means you aren't in a discussion with me. You are here to parrot, to recite, and to posture. That took about 1 post in this thread, maybe two.. Then you are here to obfuscate, attack and insult; which makes up the bulk of your not participation here, but contribution.  You don't craft responses meticulous or otherwise... because that would be a thinking man's activity, not a response from a biased mans with an agenda.  Again by definition folks with bias and agenda's don't consider alternative positions. What you do is attack me personally Post #43, #61, #82, #86, #112, #133 .... or you attack my sources #148... Then you talk about talking about the topic #74, #163...  Anything you can do to avoid discussing the actual topic.... I mean that's what a bias man with an agenda, out of his depth does isn't it..  Runs his mouth, sucks up all the air out of the room....  Craft arguments? You brook no discussion, you attack.    You don't seek information because you have all the information you care to hear. You entered the room with it, hell you might have been born with it...   The only folks who you are civil to are those who either agree with you or who defer to you.  That's why I tend to ignore you, because you are checked out... there is no light bulb on...  your responses are reflexive, dull, and uninteresting... and that's when you are on topic.. which is pretty rare.  Mostly you just come here to be insulting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 The primary tenet of Judaism was and remains its monotheism. For someone to claim to be God pretty much takes the cake, nevermind all the arguing back and forth about how Jesus and God are somehow one. I understand that Christians have twisted themselves around to believe that but I don't so we'll just have to disagree. Exactly correct. Which brings us full circle back to Arians. The Arians or one of the first christian heretical teachings believed God the father, predated Jesus the son... which is simple and straight forward.. your father came before you, you come before your son... common sense right... The problem was the implications of this common sensed conclusion. If Jesus came after the father, then they were two distinct beings.. If they were distinct and Jesus was to be worshiped as a God, then Christianity would become polytheistic; worshiping god the father and jesus the son. Making the trinity three parts of one God solves this. To question it is reasonable.. It was a solution to a problem which was debated across the empire for decades, and across Christianity for hundreds of years. The arguments are clear, the reasoning is novel, and the answer would become the obsession of all of Christianity for quite a while. The last time the Arians made a comeback which could potentially challenge the trinitarians was during the Protestant Reformation in the 1500's. That's over a thousand years after Nicea was supposed to have solved this issue. To me I appreciate how the early christians struggled and obsessed to make sense of the teachings they had. Can you dismiss their conclusions; sure that's just a matter of faith, you have it or you don't.. but to me the question is can you appreciate how smart and determined these early christians were to first come up with this novel solution and secondly to achieve such wide acceptance of it across christianity. These guys were like the rocket scientists of their day and these kinds of questions were like the Gemini, Mercury and Appolo programs, the height of human achievement.... They had the Emporor of Rome sitting in on the discussions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Craft arguments? You brook no discussion, you attack. You don't seek information because you have all the information you care to hear. You entered the room with it, hell you might have been born with it... The only folks who you are civil to are those who either agree with you or who defer to you. JMS, I have been spending way too much time on this board for over a decade now, and you are the first person I am aware of to characterize me in this fashion. Now, I suppose it's possible that I simply lack the self-awareness to realize just how much of an ad hominem slinging, close minded, religious hack of a jerk that I am, but I must admit, I don't see much of what you assert here when I reflect upon my posting (which I do all the time). To be fair, I have been blunt with you, but nothing I have written was intended as a personal attack. I looked back over the posts you referenced, and I just don't see it. If you'd like, please feel free to quote specific things I have written that you feel was a personal attack. You have, however, aptly demonstrated why I no longer find it productive to discuss anything with you. If you're going to dismiss anything I write in such a fashion, there is not point. I'm going to have to continue addressing your posts, probably, to avoid others being misled by your sometimes very convincing self-assurance, so don't worry... you'll still have plenty of opportunities to call me dull, reflexive, uninteresting, and off topic. Moreover, I'm in good company as many of the scholars who actually have devoted their professional lives to the study of Christianity and other religions over the years decided on atheism or agnosticism or weren't moved from that opinion if it was previously held. For there to be disagreement about that fundamental point by people who have spent even more time studying this stuff than you have says to me that my position isn't irrational at the very least. Your position of agnosticism/atheism is not what I was critiquing (though I obviously disagree with it). It was your argument vis a vis parallelism, which is rejected by the vast majority of scholars, including the atheists/agnostics, and which I will focus on here. Â In spite of the fact that you say it's ludicrous to think Jews would accept syncretism yet they were willing to allow this group of (heretical) Jews and even Gentiles to remain within the fold of Judaism until some later time. The thing is, they didn't remain within the fold. The Jewish authorities had Jesus killed. As I noted, the tensions between the early Christians and Jews are obvious in various places in the New Testament. This is not, however, inconsistent with the fact that the New Testament is steeped in Second Temple Judaism, in concepts like ressurection, messiahship, and so on. Â I accept that they really believed it. If Jesus' followers really believed that they had met him Risen, it cannot be the case that this miracle seeped into the stories much later influenced by the religious beliefs of other cultures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 ...gentlemen... Â Â and notice the plurality.... Â Â apply to "both" threads Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 ...gentlemen... Â Â and notice the plurality.... Â Â apply to "both" threads Jumbo, in my professional capacity I have, of necessity, developed a knack for interpreting the actual intent behind jumbled grammar, poor spelling (to the point that the word isn't clear), bad handwriting, and confused syntax. Many of my colleagues seek me out to "interpret". This skill has even stood me in good stead on internet message boards, as you might imagine. I must confess, though, that even I am stumped by that post. I think your intent was to pointedly call both JMS and me gentlemen, and that you wanted to make it clear that your assessment extended to both threads in discussion (this and the one I previously linked), but wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 I have always thought your skills (as you identified them) were above average.  For the literal interpreter, It was addressed to the main players (6-7?) in both current threads, who were straying into the more-personalized turf, and in increasingly short-tempered fashion. Still mild enough, but I set a higher standard for youse yutes and the $5 topics.     (i'd decided not to correct "plurality" after posting it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 long day      btw, talk about disappoint, i pretty much think you're all about half-assed at best....       Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 ...i have another thought...communications-wise...think of jms as timothy leary & noam chomsky's love child (modern technology superseding god & darwin), who had suffered head trauma with severe damage to broca's area as an adolescent, and was home-schooled by Victor Borge (will anyone get that last?)   that's how i do it      with tb, i just do the "tl;dr" (even just his links and "excerpts" run on forever) like everyone does with me when i go long            Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 with tb, i just do the "tl;dr" (even just his links and "excerpts" run on forever) like everyone does with me when i go long  I've learned with your post, to read the first sentence and last sentence of each paragraph.  If they seem to make sense, I read the rest of the paragraph.  If not, I skip to the next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 I've learned with your post, to read the first sentence and last sentence of each paragraph. Â If they seem to make sense, I read the rest of the paragraph. Â If not, I skip to the next. Â Â i like it and i love all you really smart guys and all your flawless posting styles and content Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 I've learned with your post, to read the first sentence and last sentence of each paragraph. If they seem to make sense, I read the rest of the paragraph. If not, I skip to the next.I use a similar method. I read his entire post and if it doesn't make sense I know I haven't had enough to drink yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.