Now here's a pleasant topic

[MDLarson]

Originally posted by Ed Spruiell
well Matt, as long as we are airing our feelings, then let me say that i'm "a little angry" that we probably all got sucked into this whole 'debate' because you didn't proofread your original post and indicated that you had an open position by claiming 2 contrasting postitions - religious vs. pro-choice. or else you carefully manipulated that, knowing that not many would feel the need to butt heads with a trolling pro-lifer. You added to that deception by claiming you are non-denominational, yet you now announce you are a member of a church. Again i ask - which is it?

My intent was never to deceive. I'm sorry if it appears that way, but let me assure you, no, plead with you, I am not trying to be deceptive! That mistake in my first post was just a mistake, and I'm glad you pointed it out. I fixed it long ago, so please let it go! I normally do proofread my posts, I just missed that one. Sorry.

I think I understand your point about how a religious person could possibly be pro-choice. You misinterpreted my meaning--I was speaking generally, in that general Christianity is generally pro-life. I was trying to say nothing more. Now I would ask that you also accept that it's possible for me to go to a Christian church and still consider myself "non-denominational". I simply claim no allegience to any man-made institution--only to the Bible.

I am also "a little angry" that you made a post in site discussions in which you felt intimidated about members having high post counts. Then after some of us politely and genuinely assured you it meant nothing, you have since posted making fun of people with high post counts. I don't know why i would take this personally, do you?

Again, I'm sorry I offended you. It was not my intent--I was only joking around. In defence, a majority of replies in that thread indicated that folks with a high number of post counts were generally treated with friendly joking. In reference to my animated GIF, again, totally a joke. I don't really believe people with high post counts have "no life".

Yet again, i am "a little angry" that you seem to take pleasure in stirring up controversies and yet don't have (or take) the time to participate in them. You do a lot of watching quietly afterwards. And when things don't turn out how you would like, you get angry. Some advice - don't stir the coals if you aren't ready for the fire.

I am happy about your final post to your poll thread. It seems you decided to listen with an open mind for once. I was "a little angry" that you seemed to think it was your job to make this site into the very thing others here avoid.

In the end, I'm a little embarrassed about that thread. I should have been "not-so-gung-ho" about the whole thing. This forum is a new place for me, and I love it but I was a little unfamiliar with it. Thank you (to all who replied in that post) for your enlightening posts, seriously. As far as stirring things up and watching quietly afterwards, where am I doing this? I'm trying my best to take responsibility for what I type here.

I also do not know who c.k. chesterson is, but he is an idiot if he said the thing in your signature. to start with, the mouth comes down on nothing solid when you drink to quench your thirst. And when it is used to communicate. and i am sure that communication is one of the things it was designed to do. and a mind ceases to function properly whenever it closes. it simply becomes like an outdated computer - able to recall the data already stored on its local area, but unable to use new and useful advances that come along that need more memory and greater processing speeds to be of any value.

Please don't get distracted by the technicalities of mouth functionality. The point of the quote is this: Instead of wading through life constantly "keeping an open mind", always searching, never finding, chomp down on something you can really believe in. For me, that is JESUS!

all this being said, i want to like you, i really do. but quite frankly your flashing fish and your tactics offend me. I do not deny you your beliefs. In fact i support your right to air them, regardless of how much they conflict with mine. but this is not a religious site. it is a computer site. and we have a thread for religion that you might have noticed. of course it probably doesn't interest you since i asked everyone to talk with respect for others' beliefs and not to let if become a place for proseltyzing and criticizing. I can only say that those people who feel the need to convince everyone else of the beliefs their minds have "closed on" are the ones who are still trying to convince themselves. And it is also not a flame wars site nor is it a site about status. It is many different things, but not those. So maybe you should watch and se how to be apart of it without setting yourself apart from the others who frequent here.

Yes, this is a computer site, but I posted in "All Thoughts Non-Technical". And why do you claim I do not respect others' beliefs? Nowhere have I talked down your paganism, atheism, nor any other belief system. To be fair, my original intent in this thread was not to inflict my beliefs on others, but merely to spark a debate on something we all (apparantly) feel strongly about. I'm sorry if you were turned off by some of my posts regarding abortion, but I was provoked into defending myself by RacerX.

I apologize to anyone else who feels they were somehow attacked in this because they happen to agree with matt in any way. i assure you this is all just for him. I have been holding this back for days now, with some of us discussing matt's habits and tactics in private. So while i might have misconstrued matt in some ways, i know i am not alone in my perceptions. and it would probably remained held back if he had not "opened that door" as they say in the courtroom, by expressing his "anger" that others' opinions differ from his. I have had lots of people disagree with me on this site, but never anyone get angry because i held a different opionion than they did.

What? I was angry because I kept getting misunderstood and critisized for no reason (maybe my posts were not clear?). Please listen to me; I know others have differing opinions. Please believe me when I say that this in itself does not "make me angry"!

Ending note: (as this message length is now reaches over 6,600 words…)
I feel as if I cannot both maintain my dignity and actively participate. On one hand RacerX was bent on scrutinizing how my birth-control methods conflicted with my beliefs (which they don't), and on the other hand, you (and others?) think I am pushing my beliefs on everybody here. I at least have to defend myself, which necessarily brings my Christianity into the mix.

I would love to actively participate in MacOSX.com. I would love to be able to get along with you, Ed Spruiell and RacerX. Please try to understand me and notice when I change my mind about things, like "Inviting Mac Haters" and "Silly Post Counts".

 

[edX]

Matt, i accept your apology and your explanations. i too would like to get along with you. and i am willing to give you every benefit of every doubt.

so let me just give you a hint on the joking about post counts - it is ok when people we know, and have friendly conversations with regularly, joke with us. we do it all the time. it feels different when somebody who just shows up (at least on my radar blip). it would be no different if you were with a group of friends and some friend of a friend started joking 'about' you. it is a matter of depth of knowledge and emotional closeness. these two things should grow at a steady proportional rate. now you are not the first person to make this well intentioned mistake and i will accept that you did it in a desire to fit in and be accepted. but next time think about how well you know somebody before you say anything about them that might be misconstrued.

and maybe a way to work your way up to controversial subjects would be to hang out and talk about macs with us regularly. we all seem to like them. or even stop in Herve's Bar & Grill and chat with people about life and random thoughts.

let me say that i was unexpectedly impressed by your response to my feelings about who and what you seem to have been up to this point. You responded like an adult. but i still mean what i say about a mind should never be closed. It is one thing to believe in something, even Jesus, and another to reach a point where you blindly accept it as an absolute truth. In the case of Jesus, there are many different ways to interpret what he said and did as well as who he really was. which relates to my point about your being a member of church and thus having a denomination.

Denominations are organized around interpretations of the bible. There is no one who has the absolute truth as to what it means but many have divided themselves over what it says. so if you are attending a particular church, you are being influenced by that particular interpretation. Only someone who studies the bible independently without aid in interpretation from a particular branch of Christianity is truly non-denominational. of course i also understand the desire for the social fellowship of those who think similarly even if not identically. so i can understnd one's dilema in being non-denominational or joining a group.

sorry if i attacked you, but it has felt like you have been attacking us from the day you posted the "silly post counts" thread. Despite not being a Christian, i am the first to forgive and forget when given reason to. perhaps i will post a poem about Jesus that i wrote in the religions poll thread so you will understand that it isn't Jesus I am offended by. it is those who presuppose to know his will and yet don't practice his ways. so i hereby declare a truce and will be happy to get to know you on a less confrontive basis.

 

[RacerX]

In the beginning of this thread I was happy to sit on the side lines and read what others had to say. My opinions on the subject seem to be shared by what appeared to be a majority, so I didn't see a need to chime in. On the second page, after a number of posts by Matt trying to show the "science" of his argument, he posted this:

by Matt, 3-5-2002
I view it as quite simple:

Sperm cells and egg cell are separate, and considered part of the parents' bodies, so they are also to be considered "living" cells, albeit not a new person. I think that it is simply after a romantic evening (or whatever) when those cells collide and start dividing again as one organism.

Some might be suprised to hear that I do not oppose birth control per se, and indeed use it (my wife takes a birth control pill). To clarify, I would oppose any type of birth control that takes affect after conception. In other words, prevention is OK, abortion is wrong.

And then on the third page Matt, you posted a link to the Pro-Life web site. The fact that you believe that your life style is fine even though it conflicted with what you were saying, and the fact that you felt the need to bring propaganda into the thread was enough to make me push the issue.

My point in pushing was to keep you off balance enough to make you stop posting propaganda and to see if you are true to the beliefs that you have posted here, which I have come to the conclusion that you are not (though I still had some hope back when I posted my original thought in this thread). Basically, you hold others to a higher standard than yourself, which is a weak position from which to preach ones beliefs to others. If you don't walk the walk on this issue, you should not have been laying out such strong definitions. Each time you said something like it's a human life, you gave me more to work with in hammering away on your ethical conflict with this issue. The possibility that your life style would be in conflict with your beliefs was a technicality to you, but if it was someone else it would become murder in your eyes.

For as long as you characterize choice as something akin to murder, I shall continue to point out the fact that there is a good possibility that you and your wife may already be guilty of the same thing.

on the subject of anger

What? I was angry because I kept getting misunderstood and critisized for no reason (maybe my posts were not clear?). Please listen to me; I know others have differing opinions. Please believe me when I say that this in itself does not "make me angry"!

Funny, I thought you said something like this:

And I can't help but feel a little angry when you (and others) talk about "being forced to sustain another human life"…

It's a human life. It's the mother's baby. In almost all cases*, the woman had an active part in bringing about her pregnancy. Where is the responsibility?

That doesn't sound like you were angry because we misunderstood you, does it? You were angry because we did not agree with your feelings on this issue. Given that, Ed was right to point it out and within his rights to air his feelings (on many subjects). He was very correct when he said: And when things don't turn out how you would like, you get angry. This is exactly what you did in this case.

on threads like this one, and posting

This site is big enough for all of us. If testuser wishes to talk about Macintoshes, there are more than enough threads to do that in. Ed, this has become far more than just a computer site, and you of all people should know this. We have discussions within the realm of a civil social environment (and we all seem to like Macs allot). If there is something that is just not what you are willing to join in with, then don't. I personally have a hard time using colorful language, so I do not join in with the cus thread. I would not ask that it be taken down, but I have no interest in what happens within it. This thread (though labeled badly) is no different. We have had some very heated debates over topics of all types, and yet we are still together. This thread is going to go on as long as someone has something to say, and none of us should try to put a stop to it just because it has gotten past our individual points of tolerance.

If things get out of hand, I trust Admin to step in and fix things. He has shown that he is able to judge a situation and act without taking away any of our personal rights or acting against any of our personal beliefs. I would hope that everyone would also trust in him to make those choices, and would stop trying to put a halt to threads just because they wish to have the last word on the subject... because that is my job!

 

[edX]

yes, i (of all people) know that this site has become something more than just a computer site. and i wouldn't want it any other way. Neither do i want to see things reach a point where none of us could be friends with Matt. and i certainly do not want to force my beliefs on him or anybody else. One of the things that holds a community together is the ability to disagree and still be cohesive. I am with you entirely on not seeing threads stopped. For one thing it deprives people of an opportunity to rise above their emotional reasoning (or lack of reasoning) and to come to a point of understanding.

I would still like to hear Matt give good reasons for his stance outside of pro-life propaganda and the presumption that all choices involving life and death are predicated by his religion's restrictive viewpoint. i would like to hear his own basis for his beliefs. and while it won't sway me one way or the other, it might be reaasurring that he has some reference for it other than what a preacher or pro-life promoter told him he should believe. If Matt lives with inconsistencies and hypocritical actions and words in his life from time to time, that is ok with me. It makes him like everyone else. and with time and discoveries he will open his mind to more possibilities (with any luck at all).

I think you did a good job of pointing out matt's lack of responsibility for his anger. i started to do that in my last post and instead opted to simply take him at his word that he did not mean it the way it sounded. but that does not change the way we interpret it as we read it. I am still miffed as to why Matt saw the need for this thread, since it appeared from early on he had his mind set despite his claim of open minded curiosty. He also started by asking what religion has to do with this and then clings to his religion as the basis for his viewpoint. I think he can do better. or at least he thought he could when he started this.

and that open mindedness that matt claimed ( at the time his sig. said minds are like parachutes, they only work when they are open) is what pulled me into this thread. I would have probably ignored it after his first post if I had known he was a prolifer and would be posting fetus pictures and sounding superior because he is a defender of the unborn. He continues, like most pro-lifers, to not understand the difference between pro-abortionists and pro-choicers. Yes, i could drop out and leave you guys to argue in circles. or i can add my part and see how it play. I make a choice when i do so. and that is certainly the biggest thing that i stand by in most of my arguments - that people be aware of their choices and be given the right to exercise them.

Matt - I must add that I empathize with you to some extent. I suppose you thought you would have a person or 2 on your side. and i am sure there are those who agree with you. But you got caught on one side by yourself and pushed from all sides by us. I know what that is like from my stance on Mozilla. It isn't always easy is it? You're really doing ok with that considered.

Gentlemen, at this point i think i will pull a Theed (*) - graciously bow out of this thread, feeling i have said my part. but waiting and watching to see if anything brilliant or dim enough is said to draw me back in. Other than you can find me at Herve's most days.

* - Theed, my old friend, has said that it will be his last post in the warez thread at least 3 times.