Now Obi can join Santa among the ranks of atheist Jews who lecture others about having the correct religious Jewish beliefs. Pick a side, for christ's sake.

You know what I respect about you, Obiwan? The fact that you are willing to put your thoughts out there for the Diplomacy public to deal with as they will. You don't have Santa's logic, but you might be the bravest of us all--taking hits from all comers and jumping right back up again--or recovering for a short time, and wading back into the fray. (Btw, by saying this I'm not trying to encourage your particular points of view, just your indomitable spirit.) :-)

Yeah, he's a regular Mandela.

@SD:

" But I don't like telling people what not to believe. I mean, his personal view of Judaism allows him to be a Jew who believes in Jesus. As far as I can tell, he's not saying that's true of all Jews or true of you as a Jew, it's true of he personally and whoever chooses to be ministered by him.

In other words, if it doesn't directly involve you, I advise letting the guy be free to do what he wants."

I'm not telling him what to believe...

I'm saying he should call his belief what it is--Christian belief, NOT Judaism.

His "personal view of Judaism" is at odds with the core of Judaism over the last 2,000 years...and it'd be OK to say "Well, maybe it's just a new interpretation" except, it's not, his belief has a name...it's called Christianity! :)

So he should just stick to preaching Christianity and calling it as such, rather than misrepresenting the Jewish faith that way.

Granted I don't hold to it, but I also find it rather dishonest and huxterish to peddle something under one name when it's really another, and what's more, I don't like other cultures and religions being misrepresented, that being a common source of pain and suffering over thousands of years.

When I CRITICIZE a religion, I don't misrepresent it...

When I criticize the Judeo-Christian ethos as being rather sexist, I cite the many passages that may support that case, ie, passages giving the how and endorsement of selling your daughter for slavery--or for something else--and the excessive blame leveled at Eve and the emphasis on one Mary in the NT being a virgin and another a woman of ill repute (I won't say prostitute or the like, lest translation and interpretation say different things to different folks, but she was on the ill side of things before Jesus, leave it there) and so on.

I DO NOT EVER SAY "I criticize Judaism and Christianity for worshiping Baal and Zeus and Thor and many other fictional gods."

That would not be true.
That's not what they believe.
That's mis-characterizing the dogma of those religions.
That's not at all helpful as a criticism and not honest criticism.

I levy the same charge at this man--

Peddling Christianity as Judaism...he's free to worship what he wants, I just ask that he CALL IT what it IS.

This thread is bad, and all the participants should feel bad.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lu341ztUDH1r5qrimo1_400.gif

Obi is a well oiled weather vane who more often than not piles on with the mob against lone voices of dissent. Aside from his newfound militant atheism, his posts read like Thomas Friedman editorials - if Thomas Friedman were on cocaine.

"Now Obi can join Santa among the ranks of atheist Jews who lecture others about having the correct religious Jewish beliefs. Pick a side, for christ's sake."

If I characterized Marxism as "the belief that states that the acquisition of capital is good and necessary for the growth of a society, with each earning according to ability rather than need and no redistribution taking place," I would be very much wrong, yes?

There is a theory that already bears that name...and it's not Marxism.

Same here, that's all--

I dislike something being peddled as one thing when it is another.

WHY is that so unbelievable or wrong?

You often try to mix and mash contradictory beliefs, and you have no problem with it. You recently went on a long rant defending that practice when I called your literary tastes into question.

"I dislike something being peddled as one thing when it is another."

No, you dislike whatever you decided to dislike on a particular day. To repeat myself again, you needed something to be outraged by and, with Romney gone and no Anonymous sequel in the works, you picked this.

"I dislike something being peddled as one thing when it is another."

But yet you peddle your pedagoguery as academics...

:)

@Draug:

"If you reread my earlier response you will note that I made the requirement of Christians for Mohammed be that they still call Christ the Son of God and Messiah."

I saw it, but therein that statement lies the kernel of my own point, actually...

Suppose they didn't do THAT.
THAT, apparently, is your breaking point, ie, if they didn't do THAT and called themselves Christians, you'd take issue with their describing themselves as such, yes?

Then that's my point--crossing the threshold from one view to another, bending it until it breaks and can no longer be supported by the canon of the view they purport to hold.

If it takes that extra bit added to my "Christians for Muhammad" example, I'll add that, that they don't hold that view you cite as necessary.

My point is once a NECESSARY standard like that, or not taking Jesus as the messiah, or whatever else is breached, it ceases to be A and becomes B, and to call it A still is deluded, disingenuous, and both.

And I'll close with a statement applicable to several responses--

I type fast, and I type a lot, as I like to be thorough in making my point, as I feel a thoroughly, well thought out point is more constructive than a quick post filled with vagueness that we'll spend dozens of posts batting back and forth over just the language and what's being meant.

I try and be explicit in what I say and detailed in my reasons why and how I say it, so as to support my view adequately.

If that means my posts are longer, they're longer...I DO edit myself as I go, Invictus, I'm sorry, but this is simply the length at which I comment naturally, and I'm not going to tailor and essay with formal cuts for a thread on an internet forum, and so I'll comment naturally and more along the lines of what I mean rather than overly-concise, lacking examples and complexities--I'd rather a complex answer over a simple answer to just about anything, I find it easier to understand and usually more constructive and correct--that would just be me throwing short, empty phrases after others.

"
If that means my posts are longer, they're longer...I DO edit myself as I go, Invictus, I'm sorry, but this is simply the length at which I comment naturally, and I'm not going to tailor and essay with formal cuts for a thread on an internet forum, and so I'll comment naturally and more along the lines of what I mean rather than overly-concise, lacking examples and complexities--I'd rather a complex answer over a simple answer to just about anything, I find it easier to understand and usually more constructive and correct--that would just be me throwing short, empty phrases after others."

You could have edited that run-on.

If this is you editing then you suck at editing and have lucked out by having indulgent teachers and professors who haven't punished such obscurantism. The whole point of writing is communication ,and you consistently fail at that.

"You often try to mix and mash contradictory beliefs, and you have no problem with it. You recently went on a long rant defending that practice when I called your literary tastes into question."

And what's wrong with that?

If I see a good idea from column A and a bad one from column B, SO LONG AS I don't align myself as being necessarily A--as our rabbi is doing, aligning himself as necessarily A and a practicing Jew when he in fact is taking mostly from B and is Christianized--I fail to see the problem.

I don't limit myself to one dogma or another, with a few exceptions, and I know you dislike that, Putin, as you feel one should align themselves with one stance or another (indeed, almost taking one radical extreme or another in places) and fight for that stance rather than for individual ideas...

I disagree, and find that counter-productive to discussion and intellectual pursuit.

There's no reason why, even though I am a registered Democrat, if there happened to be a Republican who really and truly came across to me as the better choice, I shouldn't vote for him.

That didn't happen this election season, it's happened rarely if ever, but I won't rule out all Republicans de facto by virtue of my being a Democrat, that seems rather closed-minded.

So yes, I like to mix and match, and take what I like from different stances...

And with obvious exceptions--I can hardly take a view of Heaven and promise of an afterlife as true while being an atheist, after all--I see no reason why I cannot or should not, as that seems closed-minded; you call it wishy-washy, and I call it open-minded, and I call you stubborn and dogmatic, whereas I suppose you'd tout the courage of your convictions and standing by them...

Different academic strokes for different academic folks.

"The whole point of writing is communication ,and you consistently fail at that. " QFT!

"If this is you editing then you suck at editing and have lucked out by having indulgent teachers and professors who haven't punished such obscurantism. The whole point of writing is communication ,and you consistently fail at that."

Well, I communicated well enough to have a discussion with Draug and others before you arrived...perhaps you can't access what I'm saying and I need to endeavor to make it more accessible to you...

This is not class.
I will not treat it as class.
I will not edit this the way I do my 25-page papers.
If you dislike that, then I will try and edit more in my responses to you...

But I'm not going to start with a formal introduction, thesis, body paragraphs in successive order, and a conclusion statement as if you were my professor...

NOR should you judge this as if it were work done for a professor (I'm procrastinating writing a couple papers at the moment, actually, for professors, just to talk to you all!) ;)

It wasn't technically a run-on, Invictus.

Actually, Obi, I was hard pressed to follow your ramblings and have learned over the last couple of years to skim your writings then reread something that seems worth reading and not just repeating a point ad naseum.

"No, you dislike whatever you decided to dislike on a particular day. To repeat myself again, you needed something to be outraged by and, with Romney gone and no Anonymous sequel in the works, you picked this."

Yes.
I comment on what like and don't like as I go along in life.
When it was anonymous, I wrote on that, when it was Romney, I wrote on him...
I don't have a set agenda with my writings here...

I'm just sharing with a community of others who share current events as well as literary and cultural tastes what I happen to like, dislike, praise, take issue with, etc.

It'd be rather boring if I always complained about Obama and "the liberals" for 40 threads straight...especially as I like the man, but you get the idea.

I'm the same as Draug. It's impossible to follow your train of thought if you actually read. You have to skim and find the (small) part that seems related to the point that was actually being discussed.

Anmd noone is saying you should make your writing a class paper. But to make it more accessible by editing it so you communicate clearly and without risk of misinterpretation is on you. I know you are asexual (or claim to be) but oif you go on like that with women, you will never get laid even if you want to.

"Actually, Obi, I was hard pressed to follow your ramblings and have learned over the last couple of years to skim your writings then reread something that seems worth reading and not just repeating a point ad naseum."

And that's fine with me...and what I generally expect most people to do with my writing.

So in that sense, we communicate just fine.

I don't expect you to read everything...

I DO expect you to skim and take out what you like...*I* just present everything I can to provide the fullest picture and menu of options for that selection that I can.

So I'm fine with skimming...and I expect it...with the possible exception of Putin, who seems to go through everything more rigorously, but I probably put too much there for him as well.

But one should not have to work so hard to undewrstand what you are communicating. Especially when some (nay many) of your analogies fail at the most basic level but your audience (yes, we are your audience) has neither the time nor the patience to point out all the flaws therein.

Audience, Draug? I prefer the term "victims."

The sacred cycle continues

Obi posts something stupid -> I say its stupid -> Putin ridicules one or both -> An OSU adviser gets another excuse why his student has yet to progress toward graduation.

Well, as this has popped up again, a word to my "victims":

1. I read, without complaint, all you have to say or, if approaches Obi length--I'm so happy to have at least had my name become an adjective of sorts, good to know that, in a thousand years, some poor bastard grad student studying the English language's etymology will have a devil of a time trying to figure out where THAT turn of phrase originated--read it all the same...or skim, as I said I expect most to do with me.

And I don't complain about their length...their contents, maybe, but not their length.

Seems rather like a school child to complain about having to read long passages rather than short ones...

I'll never approach the genius of either, but to say T.S. Eliot's poetry is better than that of John Milton's simply because Milton takes thousands of lines and 12 full books to make his point with "Paradise Lost" seems rather silly...and after all, if it gets dull--and it can, once Eve takes to just repeating Adam over and over about how damn beautiful Eden is--then you can skim until Satan or Gabriel show up and it gets interesting again...

And LENGTH has nothing to do with QUALITY.

To ARGUE with one of Shakespeare's more famous lines--

Brevity is NOT the soul of wit...and it should be noted the bumbler who said that was anything BUT concise and brief (a nice point of irony by Shakespeare.)

And

2. I often respond to *multiple* people in one post...

So that's multiple quotes and multiple responses...

Granted my responses would still likely be lengthy regardless, but I'm just saying, that DOES contribute to their length...most of you don't (or don't have to) respond to a good deal of people in the same post, and it strikes me as somewhat spammer-ish to break it up unnecessarily and have multiple posts, one for each person I'm responding to, as that'd often be 3 or 4 or more posts, and I try to avoid that as best as possible (with some exceptions) and conflate it all into one, single, admittedly longer response.

3. If you ARE victims...you respond and then take issue with the response, prompting another from you, another from me...all willing...

So you're willing victims, sadomasochistic if not hypocritical. ;)

@Obi -

"2. I often respond to *multiple* people in one post...

So that's multiple quotes and multiple responses...

Granted my responses would still likely be lengthy regardless, but I'm just saying, that DOES contribute to their length...most of you don't (or don't have to) respond to a good deal of people in the same post, and it strikes me as somewhat spammer-ish to break it up unnecessarily and have multiple posts, one for each person I'm responding to, as that'd often be 3 or 4 or more posts, and I try to avoid that as best as possible (with some exceptions) and conflate it all into one, single, admittedly longer response."

Edited down version of your point:

"2. I often respond to *multiple* people in one post...

So that's multiple quotes and multiple responses...

Granted my responses would still likely be lengthy regardless. [M]ost of you don't (or don't have to) respond to a good deal of people in the same post.

{And then you continue with this sentence giving us a rambling run on that could have been more succinctly said and should have been broken into separate sentences.}

It strikes me as somewhat spammer-ish to break it up unnecessarily and have multiple posts, one for each person I'm responding to. I try to aboid that as best as possible and conflate (them) all into one single response."

This is much easier to read.

Now, onto your first point's analogy. You compare a post on the internet's length to a novel. Seriously flawed analogy. An internet post is intended to be read in one reading. A novel not so much. Plays (the Shakespeare analogy)? They take hours to perform and more to read if you read the stage directions for the action. Internet posts *shouldn't* take hours to read.

An internet post is supposed to be like a conversational statement. In fact, the thread *is* a conversation, often with multiple people involved. When you post an entire tome, you are that guy at the party who has to be the center of attention and hogs the spotlight by never letting anyone else get a word in edgewise. That guy never gets invited back.

You are worse than both candidates in the recent debates having to get not only the last word, but forcibly making your point when the host has said "it is time to move on". You are the person who just won't shut the fuck up and drones on and on.

It's a converstation. Direct your posts using the @whomever tags and break them up and we will stop complaining about the obitardedness of their length.

Fuck - Now you've gone and made me make an obitard post...

The Queen of England? Sure, the "royal we" is a custom in England at least, but I don't know about other European countries. Some writers are of the opinion that the ancient Hebrews had the same custom, but I don't think they can prove it from the Torah, the historical books, the Psalms and Proverbs, the major and minor prophets... or at least I've never seen the proof. So that seems to be a projection of European customs onto the Jews of Moses' time, which I would reject. And Moses didn't see God's face--Just the trailing edge of his glory, which caused Moses' face to physically glow.

l'm not going to argue about the documentary evidence, because if you don't want to believe, you will discount any and all evidence. But don't let fear, anger, or preconceived notions keep you from coming to God on his terms, is my very best advice.