[Busemann]

Originally posted by Athens:
Give me a break, Zimphire I know your smart enough not to believe that crap!!

don't be so sure

[barang]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
To be clear; when I saw the post title I cringed. This thread topic has been exhausted several times and seems to rear it's ugly head a couple of times a year. I'm going to say the same thing in defense of Islam that I say in defense of Christianity and the like. In most cases, people who commit travesties in the name of their God almost invariably have to ignore specific tenets of their faith to do so. An example might be a pro-lifer who commits murder. This should never be construed as the fallacy of a religion for there are generally more clear reasons to take issue with it than the accusations leveled in this thread, rather it should be an indictment of a human nature that will use ANYTHING it can to manipulate the masses.

That said; I'd like to take issue with the statement that the Bible is full of contradictions. I hear this a lot and I guess it looks good to a bumper-sticker mentality, but I generally find some problems with the arguments and the one offering them. They have generally not read the Bible. I go to a site that supposedly illustrates these contradictions only to find they are either A. woefully ignorant of the culture of the time in which the writings were authored, or B. woefully ignorant of the translations and original text. and C. statements taken out of context from the verses before and after the quoted statement.

In this case, the website offered by SimpleLife above is exclusively relating to the OT conviction and persecution of women. Testament means Covenant or Contract. There was an Old Covenant, and per Christians-now a New Covenant and Contract. You see from reading the Old Contract that while the elite in high places knew the law, they came to a place where they primarily practiced adherence to it only when it was self-serving. They were not allowing God to use them in supporting God's will, but were using God to support their own wills and desires. The natural order was for the man to be in absolute submission to God and for the woman to be in submission to man. Submission to God also meant servitude to his wife, but this was not so. Man had proven that he was not in submission to God and as such women were not likewise in submission to men. The order had become broken in many respects, this only one piece of evidence. The culture of the time did not provision women with the same level of education of men. In this case for a women to have spoken in service would've allowed for the possibility that heresy would've been spoken. John seeked to change this by educating them in a tutorial fashion much later of course and many influential women can be found in the Bible including one who was personally tutored by none other than Jesus Himself; Martha. Jesus essentially came to challenge all that the establishment had become. If all had followed the Old Covenant, there'd been no need for a new agreement between God and His people. The New Testament, and more importantly Jesus Himself was quite clear about the roles of each and they were placed on a much more equal playing field in the New Agreement. Take it or leave it, the OT was building a foundation for the coming of Jesus in fulfillment of prophecy and resulted in the formation of the New Covenant. The history was necessary for the present. The present of course, much more desirable than the past in these respects. Today, many women hold positions of great influence in protestant and pentacostal churches. In short, what is called a contradiction is rarely, if ever so.

Yeah, the Old Testament Law (which most of you are talking about) was a book of law for the ancient Jews, and since Jesus died and brought in the New Testament, that portion of the bible isn't really for us. We can draw some principals (on the atributes of God, for instance) from it, but the New Testament is what True Christianity is all about.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by Athens:
Thats funny, your god is a bigger dick

Didn't you quit the MacNN like a week ago?

[SVass]

<<Yeah, the Old Testament Law (which most of you are talking about) was a book of law for the ancient Jews, and since Jesus died and brought in the New Testament, that portion of the bible isn't really for us. We can draw some principals (on the atributes of God, for instance) from it, but the New Testament is what True Christianity is all about.>>

Then why do you keep trying to add a stone mistranslation of the Ten Commandments to every courthouse. If that law is not applicable, you shouldn't believe in or (mis)quote it. sam

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by SVass:
Then why do you keep trying to add a stone mistranslation of the Ten Commandments to every courthouse. If that law is not applicable, you shouldn't believe in or (mis)quote it. sam

I can save you some keystrokes Sam. First of all, if you're quoting someone you can simply use brackets like this; [] around the word "quote". Type [ then the word "quote", then after the word quote use another braket; ] at the beginning of the quoted text. At the end of the quoted text use [ / quote ], but string them together w/o spacing. Or just hit the "reply" button at the top of that person's post and it will do this for you. Then, instead of typing your name "Sam" at the end of each post, you can set up an auto-signature that will signature your posts for you each time. This will allow you to come up with more succinct replies than the one you give above.

First of all, Christians aren't necessarily trying to add The Ten Commandments so much as we're trying to protect the right for them to remain there. The Supreme Court of the U.S. has them behind the main bench. Why can a district courthouse not display what the Supreme Court of our country displays??? The OT Law and/or the Ten Commandments are not mistranslated. They are a pretty simple guideline for peaceful co-existence. We would not know what sin is if not for those laws. By those laws a man can be judged. All will be judged as wanting using those commandments and this is where grace comes into play for the Christian. If you're curious, I can give you more information. If not, well then you're not.

[SVass]

My original comment about the Ten Commandments had to do with Barang stating that the "Old Testament" did not apply to Christians. Obviously that part does. Secondly Protestants deliberately revised their translation slightly to support their religious views vis a vis Roman Catholics just as they invented and supported civil marriage to get relief from local government. [Both translate the Hebrew word murder as kill.] The Supreme Court as I have read has only a few Hebrew words visible from the text and not the entire Ten Commandments. Why is it always the Protestant version of the Ten Commandments that are chiseled in stone for the public? (PS Thank you for the suggestions about quotes and typing. I am a touch typist and can type faster than I can follow complex directions-35 wpm) sam

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
First of all, Christians aren't necessarily trying to add The Ten Commandments so much as we're trying to protect the right for them to remain there. The Supreme Court of the U.S. has them behind the main bench. Why can a district courthouse not display what the Supreme Court of our country displays??? The OT Law and/or the Ten Commandments are not mistranslated. They are a pretty simple guideline for peaceful co-existence. We would not know what sin is if not for those laws. By those laws a man can be judged. All will be judged as wanting using those commandments and this is where grace comes into play for the Christian. If you're curious, I can give you more information. If not, well then you're not.

You are correct that the Ten Commandments offers "pretty simple guideline for peaceful co-existence".
But, what if we never had the Ten Commandments? Would society not see murder as wrong?
Would stealing, lying, and speaking out against one's fellow citizens still not be seen as wrong?
I think so. I think there are certain fundamental acts/behaviors/practices societies must forbid to exist if they are going to succeed and thrive.

I do not question the value of the Ten Commandments in Christian cultures. I simply question the link you are trying to establish between the existence of the Ten Commandments and implied justification you state for their presence in courthouses around the country.
What if we took the Ten Commandments off the wall of the Supreme Court: would the rulings they hand down carry any less weight or significance as a result? What do you think?

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
You are correct that the Ten Commandments offers "pretty simple guideline for peaceful co-existence".
But, what if we never had the Ten Commandments? Would society not see murder as wrong?
Would stealing, lying, and speaking out against one's fellow citizens still not be seen as wrong?
I think so. I think there are certain fundamental acts/behaviors/practices societies must forbid to exist if they are going to succeed and thrive.

True, but then...not quite so black and white as you know. What is it we forbid as a society? In Society we have people who believe they are beyond judgment. We have "masters of our own destiny" who believe they are righteous and quick to point fingers at others. The Laws of the 10 Commandments, while seemingly simple are extremely difficult to adhere to and can effectively indict all. Take stealing for example; I've got enough mp3's to make the local radio station blush. Is it okay because I'm undercutting a cigar-chomping record executive??? BTW; I've ceased this thieving activity!!! If you see a child who is starving literally to death while passer's by do nothing to help, would you turn this child in if you saw him stealing a loaf of bread? Have we not all said something slanderous about someone else w/o concern for what brought them to their place of shame at one point or another??? Killing; killing has been justified in many cases whether right or wrong.

I do not question the value of the Ten Commandments in Christian cultures. I simply question the link you are trying to establish between the existence of the Ten Commandments and implied justification you state for their presence in courthouses around the country.

I may question why we have Greek Gods and Goddesses throughout Courhouses and within the Supreme Court, but I'm not calling for their removal. Why? Because it's an integral piece of our history and the inception of laws and legislation into our society, and ultimitely they are not offensive or damaging to me. It's a statement, if you will; that illustrates on what ideals we've built our society and the manner in which we govern it.

What if we took the Ten Commandments off the wall of the Supreme Court: would the rulings they hand down carry any less weight or significance as a result? What do you think?

I don't think the adverse affect to society would be quite that immediately demonstrative. No, I don't think their rulings would necessarily change for better or worse as you know many questionable rulings can be made regardless of what insignia is found within a Courthouse walls. I do however, believe the affects of a policy of complete indifference to our heritage would not be known for several generations of judges, lawyers, and lawmakers. As a personal aside; I am a person of Faith and believe a society that divorces itself of God, will endure a spiritual void if you will and can lead to God divorcing Himself of that society. I believe a society divorced of God will allow for much confusion and convolution of societal "givens" that can no longer be taken for granted. Social issues can begin to trickle into that society that will lead to it's breaking down. I believe we're seeing this today.

Conversely, I see absolutely no harm in allowing the Greek Gods, Goddesses, and the Ten Commandments to remain in the Supreme Court and in most Courthouses across the country. Do you?

[barang]

Originally posted by SVass:
<<Yeah, the Old Testament Law (which most of you are talking about) was a book of law for the ancient Jews, and since Jesus died and brought in the New Testament, that portion of the bible isn't really for us. We can draw some principals (on the atributes of God, for instance) from it, but the New Testament is what True Christianity is all about.>>

Then why do you keep trying to add a stone mistranslation of the Ten Commandments to every courthouse. If that law is not applicable, you shouldn't believe in or (mis)quote it. sam

As I said, one can draw good, desirable principals from it.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I believe a society divorced of God will allow for much confusion and convolution of societal "givens" that can no longer be taken for granted. Social issues can begin to trickle into that society that will lead to it's breaking down. I believe we're seeing this today.

I'm not surprised by this sentiment but I always wonder: Compared to what? People are living longer and have higher standards of living, we've largely overcome Jim Crow and institutionalized discrimiantion against women and others, more people have more freedom and respect than ever, democracy is on the march, etc. And this is only within my relatively brief lifetime. Certainly we have problems, and in some respects the quality of life has diminished for various reasons, but it has also increased for various reasons. By what standard are we "breaking down"? What about the social problems that existed in all prior eras?

I can't remember a time when someone wasn't saying that the end was near, but it never seems to arrive.

Conversely, I see absolutely no harm in allowing the Greek Gods, Goddesses, and the Ten Commandments to remain in the Supreme Court and in most Courthouses across the country. Do you?

I doubt that very many people, if any, object to such historical displays. I'm a hopeless atheist and I don't object to them - indeed, I enjoy them. What people object to is the special treatment of a particular creed for sectarian purposes.

The Supreme Court building shows Moses holding a tablet, but there's no writing on the tablet. It's clearly there for historical/symbolic purposes, not sectarian purposes.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I'm not surprised by this sentiment but I always wonder: Compared to what? People are living longer and have higher standards of living, we've largely overcome Jim Crow and institutionalized discrimiantion against women and others,

Unfortunately, this is not evidenced by the number of those gaining affluence by perpetuating the problem, with seemingly little concern over solving it. People like Jessie Jackson and others seemingly less concerned about equal rights than simply defending any cause they think is noisy enough to make a dollar. Other "civil rights" leaders calling themselves Pastors with no home church. Groups like the ACLU with unprecedented influence in our American culture. It has truly become about the almighty dollar.

more people have more freedom and respect than ever, democracy is on the march, etc. And this is only within my relatively brief lifetime.

If you look around, I think you'll find that in many cases these augmented freedoms and prosperity have led to a society of spoiled rotten brats. As an investor, can you really trust projections given by a corporation? Do you really believe they are straight forward and respecting of their fellow man? We herald a woman who has just been released from prison who happens to be good with pots, pans, and doilies, but saved herself hundreds of thousands of dollars on the backs of the ignorant while she had inside contacts helping her out. Corporate scandals are worse than we even know.

Certainly we have problems, and in some respects the quality of life has diminished for various reasons, but it has also increased for various reasons. By what standard are we "breaking down"? What about the social problems that existed in all prior eras?

Certainly, the problems we see today are nothing new. There have always been and always will be cases of societal decay. Generally, there have been injustices within every region, affecting that region specifically. Now, with increased communication and a "desire" for Global Peace, we are endeavoring activities that require the attention of all and find ourselves essentially, in a smaller, more congested world. I believe what lies before us is a coming to a head of ideals. Democracy is on the rise yes, but isn't this a threat to Communism? I believe Communism will have something to say before long and it has the ability to speak with a very large voice. Instead of speculating though, I believe there are significant signs of societal decay and they are much more simple than all this. Several studies have been conducted and of course, many books written on societal decay or increasing incivility in general. One such report compiles the published works of several enthusiasts regarding rising incivility and uses incivility as a barometer of social decay;
Deborah Tannen, Steven Carter, Dominique Colas, and Mark Caldwell, In addition, governments are adopting civility policies. Other government officials are appealing for civility in governmental meetings. Our local city attorney pleads passionately for civility in the public meetings of the city. The Florida Bar urges lawyers to aspire to civility. Some legislatures are even attempting to pass laws to require school children to be polite. Even university faculty are offered training sessions to help them restore civility to the classroom. Whether or not there's real meat to the claim, I believe if you ask around the general consensus is that in fact, there is moral decline or in the least; increasing incivility. _

We see it in the growing litigiousness of our society. Rudeness is becoming more widespread in business and industry._ The flowering of political deceit and dissembling engenders a widespread cynicism in society._ That cynicism is nourished, perhaps most of all, by the well-documented journalistic incivility rampant in our society._

Litigiousness
The growth of litigiousness in our society has been widely lamented. Despite occasional efforts_ to contain it, the pursuit of legal vindication of rights continues to grow at a rapid pace. That growth has been aided by an accompanying phenomenon: an explosion of rights. The source is both legislative and judicial, but each forum is responding to demands from a public eager to out shout each other that they are greater victims than any other. Not surprisingly, the possibility of a civilized dialogue or discussion about issues becomes remote under such conditions. The noted philosopher Martin Golding comments, "We have experienced such an inflation of rights that the coinage of moral discourse has become debased." Harvard Law's Mary Ann Glendon also worries about a reduction in the civility of civic discourse: Our rights talk, in its absoluteness, promotes unrealistic expectations, heightens social conflicts, and inhibits dialogue that might lead toward consensus, accommodation, or at least the discovery of common ground. In its silence concerning responsibilities, it seems to condone acceptance of the benefits of living in a democratic social welfare state, without accepting the corresponding personal and civic obligations. Those concerns are not confined to the scholarly arena._ Even the columnist Molly Ivins, who would normally be inclined to favor trial lawyers, draws the line, worrying that the "Just win, baby" approach to lawyering may reflect a "societal decline in civility and decency."
Business
But our growing incivility is not restricted to the legal arena. Rudeness in business and industry has been identified as a problem of increasing significance. One study of the growth of the "ranks of the etiquette-challenged" found that the reactions to incivility can be costly to the organization in which it occurs. What did victims of incivility do? 12% said they intentionally decreased the quality of their work; 22% said they decreased their work effort; 28% said they lost work time trying to avoid the person; 52% said they lost time worrying about the person and the interaction; and 46% contemplated changing jobs._ 12% actually changed jobs to escape the bully._This does not include the incredible inflation of numbers for investors, lieing about projections, and cheating others out of pensions, getting inside trading info, etc...Now, you might say these things have been going on a long time, but our knowledge of it has increased. I'd say this increased knowledge comes with a cost we didn't incur historically.

Politics
We cannot ignore the fact that our national political debate is becoming increasingly characterized by the so-called culture wars. The religious right attacks the academic left and vice versa. Moreover, since so many of the participants view themselves as the unique bearers of universal truth, any means to the sacred end is frequently embraced._ What immense irony there is in the fact that Richard Nixon used the national interest as an excuse to engage in dirty tricks in order to ensure that the dangerous McGovern could not possibly unseat him from the presidency! A generation later Bill Clinton used virtually the same "sacred quest" excuse to justify illegalities in fundraising in order to prevent the dangerous Bob Dole from occupying the White House. Regrettably, such moves are no longer isolated events. In the view of the public, political deceit and dissembling has become the expected norm in the public life of the nation. How deeply damaging to our national fabric must it be to embrace that depth of cynicism?_

Journalism
Is our political cynicism really warranted?_ To some extent, no doubt._ But that costly cynicism is nourished, not just by a factual foundation, but most of all by journalistic preoccupation with scandal in particular and the negative "angle" on things, in general._ In her recent book The Argument Culture Deborah Tannen devotes an entire long chapter to the failings of the media. In the process, she documents the single-minded media determination to present all issues as deadly battles between opposing forces. We are now familiar with the slogan: "If it bleeds, it leads." In their quest for increased ratings, journalists strive to make every issue as bloody as possible. One result of this tack is that the flow of information is actually reduced. Furthermore, the quality of civilized civic discourse is debased. And, of course, the inbuilt media incivility generates widespread public cynicism, while the public respect for the press wanes even further._So, should we concern ourselves with the growing incivility in our society?_ Our growing litigiousness and rudeness and deceit in business carry substantial hidden costs. Political deceit gives birth to cynicism in society. That cynicism is, in turn, nurtured by widespread journalistic incivility. But that is not all. There is now substantial research showing that these "mere" incivilities generate not only harmful stress but more serious social pathologies, even to the point of mental illness and murder._

Social Pathology
Just one of the significant costs of all these incivilities is felt in increasing stress and other social pathologies. For example, Judith Martin points out in her "Miss Manners" etiquette column that violence is occurring more frequently in disputes about matters that should be questions only of etiquette or even over issues too insignificant to merit an etiquette ruling, such as the murder that ended an argument over how to put the silverware in the dishwasher. She says: "Highway discourtesy and the perception of being treated disrespectfully are also now commonplace motives for crime. Whether they realize it or not, aggressive drivers and touchy teen-agers care so much about etiquette that they kill to maintain it. This is not the approved method for keeping society polite. Miss Manners cites it only to show that the craving to be treated politely is so fundamental that even outlaws feel it." This is also evidenced by some of the threads we see here on MacNN, like the one where the gas station attendant gets plowed over by someone with $12.00 of stolen gas in the tank.

Egoism and Entitlement
A slightly different, but complementary, theory is offered by columnist Leonard Pitts, who concludes that the violent kids are simply spoiled brats;"Spoiled in the sense that they live lives of entitlement, their every waking thought revolving around themselves--their problems, their needs, their wants, their gratification." His guess is that the root problem is self-centeredness: "They can't see or sympathize beyond the borders of their own lives. Can't begin to respect the needs or feelings of others." And he sees this phenomenon as societal in nature: "Being spoiled is the all-American affliction. Our culture celebrates acquisition, treats self-interest as the only interest that matters." Pitts appears on the mark in singling out the social isolation of rampant individualism as the culprit in the growing social pathologies we experience. The FBI's recent comprehensive study of the patterns of school violence points out that the troubled teens are "left out of peer groups." Among the personality traits that indicated high risk: "poor coping skills, signs of depression, alienation, narcissism." School violence is indeed on the rise.

Sports
William Raspberry takes to task both former Indiana basketball coach Bobby Knight and the tennis superstars Venus and Serena Williams for their complete lack of graciousness. This does not include the actions of the football player who walks off the field before the game is over. The basketball player who jumps into the stands to kick the crap out of a "fan" who is jeering and spilling drinks at the players.

My addition; Customer Service
Ever wonder why you have to endure a numerical goose-chase to get a simple answer to a question??? Customer's suck. They've become spoiled little brats that think they know everything because they've been raised since the 20's be believe they're always right. They take advantage of it. How many times I've sat down with a "friend" to find them treating waiters and waitresses like serfs. It pisses me off and I tell them so. I've often thought of compiling statistics regarding the relationship between the consumer and the service provider in determining who has become worse. Is Customer care decreasing or have customers simply become more demanding and difficult?

The century which is now closing has been characterized (in the industrialized nations) by an unprecedented broad prosperity and the flowering of the individualism which it nourishes._ At the beginning of this century, that prospect worried Emile Durkheim, who forecast the breakdown of a society into anomie if the solidarity that generated social cohesion were to be lost. He perceived that societal cohesion is founded on participation in the conscience collective, the morality of society that binds it together. Translated into the terms of our present discussion, adherence to the bonds of society is reflected in the civility of a society.

I believe there's confusion in law as well like the Shaevo case in Florida. They are basically going to starve her to death by pulling the tubes because of a conflict of laws regarding assisted suicide, and suicide in general. Or other issues like San Francisco offering medical benefits to city employees seeking sex change operations, all funded by the taxpayers.

Digby Anderson sees the threat to civility arising from "the assorted barbarians, relativizers, self-esteemers, narcissists and egalitarians who are now burning the city." In fact, a recent study indicates that excessively self-centered people are the most aggressive when they are criticized. The study concluded that "narcissists mainly want to punish or defeat someone who has threatened their highly favorable views of themselves." Why should such egotists care about others at all? Their only reason would be that others can be used to help them achieve their own selfish goals. Hence, civility is an important indicator of the health of a society. Incivility, by the same token, indicates societal decline. Taken far enough, it means nothing less than the destruction of society._

I can't remember a time when someone wasn't saying that the end was near, but it never seems to arrive.

Good point. A Christian should know that not even his Savior is aware of the time, day, or hour, but this does not stop many from speculating and making a great many dollar from the speculation. That said; The rate of tornado activity is not pulsating, it's increasing. The rate of earthquake activity is not pulsating, it's increasing. I believe the amount of social decay is not pulsating, it's increasing. To what end and when I don't know and would not speculate. There is no scientist, nor theologian who claims this world will continue to exists indefinitely. Everything and basically everyone believes there is an end. One thing we can know for certain; each day we wake up we are one day closer to the end. This does not need to be viewed as negative, it's factual and a healthy reason to get up, be thankful, and embrace the day.

I doubt that very many people, if any, object to such historical displays. I'm a hopeless atheist and I don't object to them - indeed, I enjoy them. What people object to is the special treatment of a particular creed for sectarian purposes.

I agree to this, but with some exception. For example; does it make sense for someone to say; "It is wrong for you to force your morals on me!"

The Supreme Court building shows Moses holding a tablet, but there's no writing on the tablet. It's clearly there for historical/symbolic purposes, not sectarian purposes.

The Ten Commandments display at the Supreme Court is missing words for a very good reason; You can't post "Thou Shalt Not Steal" in a building full of lawyers and politicians without creating a hostile work environment.

[deomacius]

I stand in awe. ebuddy, that post is right on point!

[zigzag]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Unfortunately, this is not evidenced by the number of those gaining affluence by perpetuating the problem, with seemingly little concern over solving it. People like Jessie Jackson and others seemingly less concerned about equal rights than simply defending any cause they think is noisy enough to make a dollar. Other "civil rights" leaders calling themselves Pastors with no home church. Groups like the ACLU with unprecedented influence in our American culture. It has truly become about the almighty dollar.

The fact that Jesse Jackson has cashed in on his political position is not evidence of a "social breakdown." White politicians and preachers have been cashing in for hundreds of years; when the colored folks do it, it's a sign of social breakdown?

Forty years ago, Jackson was fighting for basic human rights. We might have had seemingly better manners then, but we were also a more hateful, violent, and oppressive society.

Also, what does the ACLU have to do with Jesse Jackson and greed? Your just tossing out a laundry list of conservative talking points. Besides, for every conservative worried about the influence of the ACLU, there's a liberal worried about the influence of the Religious Right. Nothing new.

The rest of your post is mostly a mix of "people have increasingly bad manners" and conservative talking points, which in many cases have nothing to do with one another. They are normal problems in dynamic, pluralistic societies, as ours is. They are not a sign of The Apocalypse. Any one of your examples can be found - usually worse - in other eras. You're worried about the state of journalism? Give William Randolph Hearst a look.

By the way, do the people who wrote that stuff know you're cribbing it? How about some simple attribution?

Good point. A Christian should know that not even his Savior is aware of the time, day, or hour, but this does not stop many from speculating and making a great many dollar from the speculation. That said; The rate of tornado activity is not pulsating, it's increasing. The rate of earthquake activity is not pulsating, it's increasing. I believe the amount of social decay is not pulsating, it's increasing. To what end and when I don't know and would not speculate. There is no scientist, nor theologian who claims this world will continue to exists indefinitely. Everything and basically everyone believes there is an end. One thing we can know for certain; each day we wake up we are one day closer to the end. This does not need to be viewed as negative, it's factual and a healthy reason to get up, be thankful, and embrace the day.

I think that's a nice philosophy if it works for you.

I agree to this, but with some exception. For example; does it make sense for someone to say; "It is wrong for you to force your morals on me!"

I'm not sure what this has to do with the discussion, but yes, it does make sense under certain circumstances. I assume that if you don't approve of my morals, you wouldn't want me to force them on you.

The Ten Commandments display at the Supreme Court is missing words for a very good reason; You can't post "Thou Shalt Not Steal" in a building full of lawyers and politicians without creating a hostile work environment.

Don't give them any ideas!

[SVass]

quote:The Ten Commandments display at the Supreme Court is missing words for a very good reason; You can't post "Thou Shalt Not Steal" in a building full of lawyers and politicians without creating a hostile work environment.

Actually, as I understand it the only Hebrew words at the Supreme Court are as follows: Thou shall ...steal.. Thou shall..adultery

If you read the front page of this morning's New York Times, you would have noticed an about an admission from a former California DA that he and other prosecutors automatically dismissed Jews and black women from death penalty cases because they are opposed to the death penalty. (Dismissal by class is UNCONSTITUTIONAL in California. I once sat on a jury panel where the prosecutor dismissed every college graduate with me being the last and had later had a successful state supreme court candidate tell me that that was disgusting.) White christians are acceptable on juries. Don't complain about other religions (or cast the first stone) until you fix your own. sam

[SimpleLife]

hmmm... in Trust, we doubt...

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by zigzag:
The fact that Jesse Jackson has cashed in on his political position is not evidence of a "social breakdown." White politicians and preachers have been cashing in for hundreds of years; when the colored folks do it, it's a sign of social breakdown?

"colored folks"??? I find your focus on the race of the individual very interesting Zig. Perhaps a soul-search is necessary. Many believe this mentality is at the core of racism. At the bottom of my post in which you basically called; "conservative talking points" I mentioned that a great many preacher has profitted from end-times speculation and that I was specifically opposed to this behavior. This is hardly a conservative talking point. In fact, your partisanship has required you to be at odds with the points I make regardless of whether or not there is a point to argue.

Forty years ago, Jackson was fighting for basic human rights. We might have had seemingly better manners then, but we were also a more hateful, violent, and oppressive society.

You're speaking of several in leadership. Remember, many "whites" defended equal rights, not just Jessie Jackson. If you watch Jessie's career and what he is actively involved in today, he's actually done dismally little for equal rights.

Also, what does the ACLU have to do with Jesse Jackson and greed?

I never made the claim that they were in any connection.

Your just tossing out a laundry list of conservative talking points. Besides, for every conservative worried about the influence of the ACLU, there's a liberal worried about the influence of the Religious Right. Nothing new.

Why is it necessary for you to "brand" ideals? I mean, I suppose if this makes it easier for you to banter about world views by all means. I guess I don't understand the need for labels like "conservative", "colored folks", "religious right", etc... There are a great many non religious right who share my concern over the ACLU's focus and influence. What is it "the Religious Right" support or oppose that almost any other culture in the world supports or opposes regardless of what they believe or don't believe theologically?

The rest of your post is mostly a mix of "people have increasingly bad manners" and conservative talking points, which in many cases have nothing to do with one another. They are normal problems in dynamic, pluralistic societies, as ours is.

I simply cited studies using incivility as a barometer for societal decay.

They are not a sign of The Apocalypse.

This is where I take issue with you. When did I say it was a sign of th Apocalypse? Please try to keep your Christianaphobia to a minimum. If you have a point to make, it's certainly difficult to see through ignorant statements like the above.

Any one of your examples can be found - usually worse - in other eras. You're worried about the state of journalism? Give William Randolph Hearst a look.

By the way, do the people who wrote that stuff know you're cribbing it? How about some simple attribution?

It always kills me how important this is. BTW; did you miss the top of my post in which I mentioned the authors of each study and throughout the entire post in which I included not only their names again, but the names of the books they authored on their findings???

I think that's a nice philosophy if it works for you.

Uh...thanx?

I'm not sure what this has to do with the discussion, but yes, it does make sense under certain circumstances. I assume that if you don't approve of my morals, you wouldn't want me to force them on you.

I would have to have some compass, would I not? To suppose that forcing morals is wrong, who says so??? Everyone is trying to force something, that's all.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
"colored folks"??? I find your focus on the race of the individual very interesting Zig. Perhaps a soul-search is necessary. Many believe this mentality is at the core of racism. At the bottom of my post in which you basically called; "conservative talking points" I mentioned that a great many preacher has profitted from end-times speculation and that I was specifically opposed to this behavior. This is hardly a conservative talking point. In fact, your partisanship has required you to be at odds with the points I make regardless of whether or not there is a point to argue.

You're speaking of several in leadership. Remember, many "whites" defended equal rights, not just Jessie Jackson. If you watch Jessie's career and what he is actively involved in today, he's actually done dismally little for equal rights.

In answering the question "Compared to what?", I made the point that as a society we have advanced in many ways, not broken down, and that overcoming Jim Crow and other forms of institutionalized discrimination against a variety of groups, including women, was evidence of this. You took this as an opportunity to point out that Jesse Jackson and other black leaders have tried to cash in on their political notoriety, which is true, but on a scale of socially important trends is a footnote compared to the equal rights movement as a whole. My "colored folks" remark was intended to poke fun at the IMO patronizing suggestion that the opportunism of black leaders was somehow proof of "social breakdown," when such opportunism has been par for the course for everyone else.

It wasn't me who focused on race - among other things, you referred to "'civil rights' leaders calling themselves Pastors with no home church," which we know is code for Al Sharpton, whom we know to be a favorite of conservatives . However, I don't want to get into a spat about which of us is more virtuous on the issue of race. I'm not defending Sharpton or Jackson or accusing you of racism - I don't like to see political leaders cashing in either - I'm just saying that I have trouble with the idea that they represent a form of "social breakdown" compared to the way things were 40+ years ago. I'm trying to focus on the larger picture.

I never made the claim that they were in any connection.

Which reinforces my sense that you were pretty much just tossing out a laundry list of conservative complaints, since the ACLU has nothing to do with greedy civil rights leaders.

Again, you have every right to object to the influence of the ACLU, I'm just trying to put your concerns in a larger perspective. In the larger scheme of things, is the ACLU really that fearsome, or does it simply represent one among many legitimate political interests? Like I said, for every conservative worried about the ACLU, there's a liberal worried about the Religious Right, or any number of other perceived threats. I wonder if this represents social breakdown or ordinary political differences.

Why is it necessary for you to "brand" ideals? I mean, I suppose if this makes it easier for you to banter about world views by all means. I guess I don't understand the need for labels like "conservative", "colored folks", "religious right", etc... There are a great many non religious right who share my concern over the ACLU's focus and influence. What is it "the Religious Right" support or oppose that almost any other culture in the world supports or opposes regardless of what they believe or don't believe theologically?

Let's not be coy - we use labels because they're convenient shorthand representations of well-known political and social interests. You used "groups like the ACLU," and I used "Religious Right" as a counter-example. I could have just as easily used "groups like the NRA." The point is that everybody thinks the people on the other side of the political aisle are ruining things. "Groups like the ACLU" is no more precise or substantive than "Religious Right," maybe even less so.

I simply cited studies using incivility as a barometer for societal decay.

Sorry, you can't use statements like these:

"it seems to condone acceptance of the benefits of living in a democratic social welfare state, without accepting the corresponding personal and civic obligations"

"I believe there's confusion in law as well like the Shaevo case in Florida. They are basically going to starve her to death by pulling the tubes because of a conflict of laws regarding assisted suicide, and suicide in general. Or other issues like San Francisco offering medical benefits to city employees seeking sex change operations, all funded by the taxpayers."

without revealing something about your political leanings - sex change operations have nothing to do with highway etiquette. Incivility is a problem, but again, I'm trying to discern to what extent your concerns about "social breakdown" are really just ordinary political differences.

This is where I take issue with you. When did I say it was a sign of th Apocalypse? Please try to keep your Christianaphobia to a minimum. If you have a point to make, it's certainly difficult to see through ignorant statements like the above.

You didn't, but you started out talking about a society being divorced from God and an impending social breakdown. You've also talked about being closer to "the end." I see a subtext there but I'll take your word for it that it's not your intent. My use of "The Apocalypse" was admittedly exaggerated for effect.

It always kills me how important this is. BTW; did you miss the top of my post in which I mentioned the authors of each study and throughout the entire post in which I included not only their names again, but the names of the books they authored on their findings???

It's considered uncivil to use other people's work without attribution. Did you actually compose all of those passages, with your own wording? It certainly doesn't look like it, but if so you're welcome to set me straight.

I would have to have some compass, would I not? To suppose that forcing morals is wrong, who says so??? Everyone is trying to force something, that's all.

Of course - everyone wants things their way, and everyone has a somewhat different compass. That's why we have elections. You're notion of a "social breakdown" and a "divorce from God" might be perfectly valid from your compass point - I'm just questioning whether it has universal application. One man's idea of disorder is another man's idea of liberty.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by deomacius:


I stand in awe. ebuddy, that post is right on point!

Perhaps you should sit down - he cribbed most of his post from here: http://www.cas.ucf.edu/philosophy/fp...1/moffat.html#

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Perhaps you should sit down - he cribbed most of his post from here: http://www.cas.ucf.edu/philosophy/fp...1/moffat.html#

That's hilarious.

Your Google-Fu is impressive.

[deomacius]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Perhaps you should sit down - he cribbed most of his post from here: http://www.cas.ucf.edu/philosophy/fp...1/moffat.html#

Now where exactly did I credit Him for writing it? His information was right on point. But thanks for the link.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by deomacius:
Now where exactly did I credit Him for writing it? His information was right on point. But thanks for the link.

You don't see the least bit of irony in the fact that you're applauding a post about civility that is mostly cribbed?

Now I understand your sig.

[deomacius]

Originally posted by zigzag:
You don't see the least bit of irony in the fact that you're applauding a post about civility that is mostly cribbed?

Now I understand your sig.

I agree that he could have been clearer in stating that he DID'NT write it himself, but I also don't see him claiming to have written it. Ahhh well. Tom-ay-to to-mah-to I guess.

[ebuddy]

So Zig and VmPaul; I take it you two have no problem with the report??? I mentioned a report prior to posting the report. I don't copy-paste links people will not use. I copy-paste text that requires reading. BTW; it worked. I should qualify, it kind of worked. It still allowed for hopeless skimming as evidenced by your claim of having "discovered" a truth. In case you're thinking about how clever you are you should have read my statement prior to the "copy-paste";
One such report compiles the published works of several enthusiasts regarding rising incivility and uses incivility as a barometer of social decay;
Note the semi-colon after the statement. Then further down in the post I added one of my own and claimed as much; "My addition; Customer Service" Again; all I failed to do was post a link that no one will use. It's a waste of time, but I was pretty clear that this was not my own report and when I added something claimed as much. That's as clear as I'm going to get folks. All you've really done here was illustrate a reading comprehension problem.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by zigzag:
In answering the question "Compared to what?", I made the point that as a society we have advanced in many ways, not broken down,

I suppose you're going to post all the incredible discoveries of new and exciting medical advancements as we clone one another while finding innovative ways of destroying the original. As far as the progress you'll cite; this is only progress in knowledge which comes at a cost and is only progress in the sense that we're appending the knowledge of those whove gone before us. I appreciate air conditioning and beautiful concept vehicles. I don't appreciate how important the bald eagle has become and how unimportant human life has become.

and that overcoming Jim Crow and other forms of institutionalized discrimination against a variety of groups,

I suppose we've really progressed as a society and overcome institutionalized discrimination by using our tax dollars to fund sex-change operations. That's progress for ya. It's just like a decaying human nature to bastardize and belittle a real civil rights cause by appeasing and funding the whims of the mentally ill.

including women

This I agree. We have women in extremely influential postions. This is indeed a sign of progress, but any evolution upward or downward has some instances of stumbling along the way.

was evidence of this. You took this as an opportunity to point out that Jesse Jackson and other black leaders have tried to cash in on their political notoriety, which is true, but on a scale of socially important trends is a footnote compared to the equal rights movement as a whole.

Yes, and almost every "equal rights leader" since (other than) Martin Luther King has capitalized on the "movement" thwarting the real cause and intent creating some resentment and disgust.

My "colored folks" remark was intended to poke fun at the IMO patronizing suggestion that the opportunism of black leaders was somehow proof of "social breakdown,"

In your words; a liberal refutation.

when such opportunism has been par for the course for everyone else.

Yes, including the Ol' time gospel hour preacher claiming death by lightening unless one million dollars is collected in the plate. The priest who used his opportunity to rape young boys. Our knowledge of these matters (while they have arguably been going on this entire time in equal degree as today) comes with a cost to society. A breaking down.

It wasn't me who focused on race

No, just "colored folks". I presume that's supposed to mean African-Americans.

- among other things, you referred to "'civil rights' leaders calling themselves Pastors with no home church," which we know is code for Al Sharpton, whom we know to be a favorite of conservatives .

I mentioned how interesting it was that whether or not a point is relevant to conservative idealism is important to you. He's using his pulpit for personal gain. The Ol' time gospel hour preacher.

However, I don't want to get into a spat about which of us is more virtuous on the issue of race. I'm not defending Sharpton or Jackson or accusing you of racism - I don't like to see political leaders cashing in either - I'm just saying that I have trouble with the idea that they represent a form of "social breakdown" compared to the way things were 40+ years ago. I'm trying to focus on the larger picture.

Ironically, you're missing it. They're not necessarily better or worse than they were 40+ years ago. I'm saying our knowledge of these issues and the sultry details behind them lead to increased distrust of the religion or party behind them, not the individual. This knowledge leads to decay of trust and decay of idealism. It leads to lower voter turnout, dirtier campaigns, less church-going, and less trust of leadership in general. You may not see this as a decline, I do.

Which reinforces my sense that you were pretty much just tossing out a laundry list of conservative complaints, since the ACLU has nothing to do with greedy civil rights leaders.

I disagree. The ACLU, at it's inception was funded by a provision of law to provide assistance to impoverished people, generally minorities who were wrongly accused of crime. Now they collect federal funds to provide assistance to lawyers who have a problem with a Ten Commandments display outside a courthouse, or the removal of crosses on the Los Angeles city flag. It has decayed from a mechanism of defense, to a mechanism of offense having little to do with civil rights and more to do with the unconstitutional premise of creating a society completely indifferent to the ideal upon which it was founded. This, another sign of greed and opportunism on the backs of the tax payers.

Again, you have every right to object to the influence of the ACLU, I'm just trying to put your concerns in a larger perspective. In the larger scheme of things, is the ACLU really that fearsome, or does it simply represent one among many legitimate political interests?

Once a legitimate political interest that has decayed to personal gain for a specific agenda.

Like I said, for every conservative worried about the ACLU, there's a liberal worried about the Religious Right, or any number of other perceived threats. I wonder if this represents social breakdown or ordinary political differences.

These ordinary political differences, often referred to as polar differences or "polarization"; is not pulsating or waning, it's increasing.

Let's not be coy - we use labels because they're convenient shorthand representations of well-known political and social interests.

Convenient maybe, fair and accurate no.

You used "groups like the ACLU," and I used "Religious Right" as a counter-example.

I cited a specific organization and specific individuals. You cited a sweeping generality. There's a big difference here and illustrated your parisanship much better than your claims of mine.

I could have just as easily used "groups like the NRA."

This at least would've been more effective, fair, and accurate. Afterall, we know precisely which Constitutional concept they're defending and consistently so.

The point is that everybody thinks the people on the other side of the political aisle are ruining things. "Groups like the ACLU" is no more precise or substantive than "Religious Right," maybe even less so.

"ACLU"; specific organization. "Religious Right"; christianophobic statement regarding an ideal, a liberal "tag" with no real meaning and no specific organization. Big difference.

...statements I made indicting specific groups and individuals...without revealing something about your political leanings - sex change operations have nothing to do with highway etiquette. Incivility is a problem, but again, I'm trying to discern to what extent your concerns about "social breakdown" are really just ordinary political differences.

Thanx for illustrating my point. Increased polarization is a sign of decay and leads to much incivility which I believe is an effective "proof" or barometer of social decay.

You didn't, but you started out talking about a society being divorced from God and an impending social breakdown. You've also talked about being closer to "the end." I see a subtext there but I'll take your word for it that it's not your intent. My use of "The Apocalypse" was admittedly exaggerated for effect.

To use your words; a liberal talking point illustrating nothing more than christianophobia.

It's considered uncivil to use other people's work without attribution. Did you actually compose all of those passages, with your own wording? It certainly doesn't look like it, but if so you're welcome to set me straight.

Already did. I cited a report and indicated I was citing a report with a semi-colon after the statement. When I had something personal to add to the report I clearly stated; "my addition". I suspect this was the verbiage that clued you in to the fact that it was not my report. In short, an attribution. The names of the authors and their published works were also included in the report itself. With all due respect; your reading comprehension problem is not mine.

Of course - everyone wants things their way, and everyone has a somewhat different compass. That's why we have elections. You're notion of a "social breakdown" and a "divorce from God" might be perfectly valid from your compass point - I'm just questioning whether it has universal application. One man's idea of disorder is another man's idea of liberty.

There is no such thing as total freedom and liberty. This equates to nothing more than chaos. I believe incivility is a sign of increasing chaos. To what end I don't know and will not speculate.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
So Zig and VmPaul; I take it you two have no problem with the report??? I mentioned a report prior to posting the report. I don't copy-paste links people will not use. I copy-paste text that requires reading. BTW; it worked. I should qualify, it kind of worked. It still allowed for hopeless skimming as evidenced by your claim of having "discovered" a truth. In case you're thinking about how clever you are you should have read my statement prior to the "copy-paste";
One such report compiles the published works of several enthusiasts regarding rising incivility and uses incivility as a barometer of social decay;
Note the semi-colon after the statement. Then further down in the post I added one of my own and claimed as much; "My addition; Customer Service" Again; all I failed to do was post a link that no one will use. It's a waste of time, but I was pretty clear that this was not my own report and when I added something claimed as much. That's as clear as I'm going to get folks. All you've really done here was illustrate a reading comprehension problem.

(1) There are valid reasons why we provide attribution to other people's work; one of them is the sense of civility that you're going on about. The right thing to do is to give the original author credit, irrespective of whether other people will "use" it. If you don't have confidence in the credibility of your sources, you shouldn't quote them.

(2) You didn't merely quote (in fact, you didn't use a single quotation mark) - you interspersed the other person's ideas and words with your own, sometimes indiscriminately, even after your so-called "addition." That's b******t any way you look at it.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I suppose you're going to post all the incredible discoveries of new and exciting medical advancements as we clone one another while finding innovative ways of destroying the original. As far as the progress you'll cite; this is only progress in knowledge which comes at a cost and is only progress in the sense that we're appending the knowledge of those whove gone before us. I appreciate air conditioning and beautiful concept vehicles. I don't appreciate how important the bald eagle has become and how unimportant human life has become.

I suppose we've really progressed as a society and overcome institutionalized discrimination by using our tax dollars to fund sex-change operations. That's progress for ya. It's just like a decaying human nature to bastardize and belittle a real civil rights cause by appeasing and funding the whims of the mentally ill.

This I agree. We have women in extremely influential postions. This is indeed a sign of progress, but any evolution upward or downward has some instances of stumbling along the way.

Yes, and almost every "equal rights leader" since (other than) Martin Luther King has capitalized on the "movement" thwarting the real cause and intent creating some resentment and disgust.

In your words; a liberal refutation.

Yes, including the Ol' time gospel hour preacher claiming death by lightening unless one million dollars is collected in the plate. The priest who used his opportunity to rape young boys. Our knowledge of these matters (while they have arguably been going on this entire time in equal degree as today) comes with a cost to society. A breaking down.

No, just "colored folks". I presume that's supposed to mean African-Americans.

I mentioned how interesting it was that whether or not a point is relevant to conservative idealism is important to you. He's using his pulpit for personal gain. The Ol' time gospel hour preacher.

Ironically, you're missing it. They're not necessarily better or worse than they were 40+ years ago. I'm saying our knowledge of these issues and the sultry details behind them lead to increased distrust of the religion or party behind them, not the individual. This knowledge leads to decay of trust and decay of idealism. It leads to lower voter turnout, dirtier campaigns, less church-going, and less trust of leadership in general. You may not see this as a decline, I do.

I disagree. The ACLU, at it's inception was funded by a provision of law to provide assistance to impoverished people, generally minorities who were wrongly accused of crime. Now they collect federal funds to provide assistance to lawyers who have a problem with a Ten Commandments display outside a courthouse, or the removal of crosses on the Los Angeles city flag. It has decayed from a mechanism of defense, to a mechanism of offense having little to do with civil rights and more to do with the unconstitutional premise of creating a society completely indifferent to the ideal upon which it was founded. This, another sign of greed and opportunism on the backs of the tax payers.

Once a legitimate political interest that has decayed to personal gain for a specific agenda.
These ordinary political differences, often referred to as polar differences or "polarization"; is not pulsating or waning, it's increasing.

Convenient maybe, fair and accurate no.

I cited a specific organization and specific individuals. You cited a sweeping generality. There's a big difference here and illustrated your parisanship much better than your claims of mine.

This at least would've been more effective, fair, and accurate. Afterall, we know precisely which Constitutional concept they're defending and consistently so.

"ACLU"; specific organization. "Religious Right"; christianophobic statement regarding an ideal, a liberal "tag" with no real meaning and no specific organization. Big difference.

Thanx for illustrating my point. Increased polarization is a sign of decay and leads to much incivility which I believe is an effective "proof" or barometer of social decay.

To use your words; a liberal talking point illustrating nothing more than christianophobia.

There is no such thing as total freedom and liberty. This equates to nothing more than chaos. I believe incivility is a sign of increasing chaos. To what end I don't know and will not speculate.

(1) As I keep saying: you're entitled to your opinion(s), and I'm well aware that we face problems - we always have. I'm simply questioning whether we're in the process of some unprecedented social breakdown or whether we're dealing with ordinary political, cultural and social dynamics.

(2) You appear to misunderstand the nature and history of the ACLU, which explains your original misplaced reference to "groups like the ACLU." First, the ACLU is only indirectly related to the civil rights movement - the ACLU is primarily concerned with civil liberties, which are somewhat different from civil rights (although they often overlap, since minorities have often been subject to civil liberties violations). That's why the ACLU has defended Nazis and KKK members as well as minority groups, conservatives as well as liberals, and the religious as well as the non-religious. Second, the ACLU was not established by law, but by private citizens, and has never received public funding AFAIK.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
So Zig and VmPaul; I take it you two have no problem with the report??? I mentioned a report prior to posting the report. I don't copy-paste links people will not use. I copy-paste text that requires reading. BTW; it worked. I should qualify, it kind of worked. It still allowed for hopeless skimming as evidenced by your claim of having "discovered" a truth. In case you're thinking about how clever you are you should have read my statement prior to the "copy-paste";
One such report compiles the published works of several enthusiasts regarding rising incivility and uses incivility as a barometer of social decay;
Note the semi-colon after the statement. Then further down in the post I added one of my own and claimed as much; "My addition; Customer Service" Again; all I failed to do was post a link that no one will use. It's a waste of time, but I was pretty clear that this was not my own report and when I added something claimed as much. That's as clear as I'm going to get folks. All you've really done here was illustrate a reading comprehension problem.

Is that your excuse? You don't post links because no one will use it? How do you know no one will use it? I do. I use them often if I think the poster has made a compelling argument. Geez, zigzag was so interested he had to track down your source himself.

You know the procedure. Everyone here knows it as well. Links to articles and facts if you have it. If you don't have them handy then clearly state so. Use vB Code to break out quoted material for easier reading or at the very least use Quotation marks (" ") for words that are not your own. Do you have to be reminded it's common courtesy and ethically appropriate behavior? And yes it is important. There is little enough civility on internet forums in the first place. I believe that was the topic of your response, correct?

Although I generally find expansive responses to be a diversionary debate tactic, and unnecessary, I don't mind if I believe the poster has the background and interest and is willing to take the time to articulate his viewpoint. But it has to be his viewpoint.

How many long-winded responses have you subjected readers to around here? I'm reminded of all those evolution threads where you've strewn an avalanche of text as a response. Was any of it yours? We come here to have discussions, not to throw textbooks at one another.

If you find an author that can articulate your feelings better than you can, by all means post it. But use proper attribution when doing so. I don't know that there are any professional writers on this forum. I know I'm not. I stumble along frequently. I use the Quotation technique all the time. It's not that hard to do.

The content of the post? I could care less. I'm just a curious lurker to this thread. Although, I thought it funny on a response about civility and manners that the author, that would be YOU, is found to be plagiarizing his content. Your words and behavior speaks to the integrity of your character. Your lack of contrition says even more.

[ebuddy]

Using my words, Zigzag went after and found the report to which I referred. You guys want to keep honing in on this peice that's fine, but the fact is; now he went to the link himself and read. I hope it touched him. To you two, I am sorry. I will be more clear and will cite my sources more thoroughly. I thought the report was interesting and posted it. Period.

[vmpaul]

^^ Accepted.

Intentional or not, I hope you can see the irony and humor between the content of your post and how you posted it. It'd be worthless otherwise.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Using my words, Zigzag went after and found the report to which I referred. You guys want to keep honing in on this peice that's fine, but the fact is; now he went to the link himself and read. I hope it touched him. To you two, I am sorry. I will be more clear and will cite my sources more thoroughly. I thought the report was interesting and posted it. Period.

Accepted, not that it's up to me to decide these things. I'm not the forum police and am not interested in punishing anyone - I make mistakes as well. I'm just not interested in interacting with people who aren't forthright and who aren't doing their own thinking. Not clarifying which words are yours, and which aren't, makes that difficult to discern. I also think it's inappropriate not to give attribution for direct quotes, but that's something everyone has to decide for themselves.

I understand the frustration of citing a source only to have people dismiss it as biased, but that's a risk one takes in any debate. I don't think that's reason enough to conceal the source, and certainly not reason enough to intersperse my words with someone else's. If I don't have faith in the credibility of a source, I don't quote it. [Besides, I thought that particular piece was thought-provoking, and it wasn't from an inherently biased source, so there was really no reason to conceal it.]

So, post as you like - you do try to be thoughtful, which is appreciated. My interest just tends to be severely diminished if it appears that someone is using large amounts of material from unattributed sources, or isn't doing their own thinking.