The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/ middle_east/2396613.stm
And so ends the careers of the USS Cole bombers....CNN and Fox also have confirmed that these were the guys responsible.
They took lives, and now they have been stopped.
~~Belldandy~~
And so ends the careers of the USS Cole bombers....CNN and Fox also have confirmed that these were the guys responsible.
They took lives, and now they have been stopped.
~~Belldandy~~
Page:
Hmm, still not sure, but i still think you could certainly at least argue my post below still could apply.
As you say though, if we disagree, then fair enough.
As you say though, if we disagree, then fair enough.
Not at all.
Belldandy posted his views, I posted mine. My views were labelled as "rubbish" "petty" and there was reference to "your beloved Saddam".
To be lumped in with a group of people I have no time for, simply for critcising our government irked me.
The main difference between Belldandy and me is this:
I post my emotions/concerns/feelings on a subject, whilst Belldandy posts to argue and dismiss other's opinions. I've seen 1 topic that he's started himself, "Justice".
All of his other posts seem to exist to point out how incorrect everyone else is, to label people "stupid" for disagreeing and to sneer at an opinion that does not follow his own.
Yes, I take exception to his postings.
I disagree with Flanders on religion, yet we get on perfectly well.
Why? Because Flanders doesn't dismiss out of hand because I say "I don't agree".
It is Belldandy's studied arrogance that riles me. I dont know everything about politics, and I'm quite happy to say so.
Yet Bell will trot out serious sounding posts that, as highlighted by Light, ultimately nothing more than personal opinion dressed in matching quotes and acronyms.
Should anybody dare to question him as the ultimate authority, he responds with ridicule and snide comments.
Well I'm sorry but his announcement he's "leaving" and seeing himself as "the lone voice" and "ripping ideas apart" tells me all I need to know.
A self-important, aggrandising poster that assumes he's the font of all wisdom politik and will not tolerate anybody questioning him.
Until a couple of people make points that drag him out of his depth and the response?
"I'm taking my ball and going home"
Belldandy, leave if you're going to sulk. I find it amusing that you have, on occasion, kept a topic going for days like a dog with a bone when you feel you have the upper hand.
Come up against arguments better constructed than your own and what happens?
You run away.
And despite how this comes across, this is nothing personal because ultimately, as I've said time and time again, it's just words on a monitor.
Belldandy posted his views, I posted mine. My views were labelled as "rubbish" "petty" and there was reference to "your beloved Saddam".
To be lumped in with a group of people I have no time for, simply for critcising our government irked me.
The main difference between Belldandy and me is this:
I post my emotions/concerns/feelings on a subject, whilst Belldandy posts to argue and dismiss other's opinions. I've seen 1 topic that he's started himself, "Justice".
All of his other posts seem to exist to point out how incorrect everyone else is, to label people "stupid" for disagreeing and to sneer at an opinion that does not follow his own.
Yes, I take exception to his postings.
I disagree with Flanders on religion, yet we get on perfectly well.
Why? Because Flanders doesn't dismiss out of hand because I say "I don't agree".
It is Belldandy's studied arrogance that riles me. I dont know everything about politics, and I'm quite happy to say so.
Yet Bell will trot out serious sounding posts that, as highlighted by Light, ultimately nothing more than personal opinion dressed in matching quotes and acronyms.
Should anybody dare to question him as the ultimate authority, he responds with ridicule and snide comments.
Well I'm sorry but his announcement he's "leaving" and seeing himself as "the lone voice" and "ripping ideas apart" tells me all I need to know.
A self-important, aggrandising poster that assumes he's the font of all wisdom politik and will not tolerate anybody questioning him.
Until a couple of people make points that drag him out of his depth and the response?
"I'm taking my ball and going home"
Belldandy, leave if you're going to sulk. I find it amusing that you have, on occasion, kept a topic going for days like a dog with a bone when you feel you have the upper hand.
Come up against arguments better constructed than your own and what happens?
You run away.
And despite how this comes across, this is nothing personal because ultimately, as I've said time and time again, it's just words on a monitor.
Light wrote:
> Belldandy gives the impression that, if faced with the views of
> others, the shutters will come down and he will be unable to respond
> with much beyond abuse and sophistry. I ***would have an awful lot more
> respect for him*** if he actually tried to debate a point occasionally
> rather than always resorting to tactics that are the internet
> equivalent of hair pulling and name calling.
Goatboy wrote:
> I never tell him he's wrong to think the way he does, ***until*** my views
> are dismissed because they do not sit with how he views the world.
I see exactly where you're coming from, and find myself swimming against a tide of agreement with those principles when posting this, but;
Could that strength of your dislike of his nature of dismissing views and bringing down the shutters itself, which may seem unjustifiable/irrational to us, be comparable to Belldandy's strength of dislike for disagreement with US policy, for example?
Having any opinion about anything just feels painful now :^)
> Belldandy gives the impression that, if faced with the views of
> others, the shutters will come down and he will be unable to respond
> with much beyond abuse and sophistry. I ***would have an awful lot more
> respect for him*** if he actually tried to debate a point occasionally
> rather than always resorting to tactics that are the internet
> equivalent of hair pulling and name calling.
Goatboy wrote:
> I never tell him he's wrong to think the way he does, ***until*** my views
> are dismissed because they do not sit with how he views the world.
I see exactly where you're coming from, and find myself swimming against a tide of agreement with those principles when posting this, but;
Could that strength of your dislike of his nature of dismissing views and bringing down the shutters itself, which may seem unjustifiable/irrational to us, be comparable to Belldandy's strength of dislike for disagreement with US policy, for example?
Having any opinion about anything just feels painful now :^)
>
> On one hand, you could distinguish the two as existing on seperate
> levels - Belldandy's style of criticism as *within* a difference of
> opinion while Goatboy's regards how we conduct ourselves *when faced
> with* a difference of opinion.
> But is this distinction really valid? While you may agree with
> Goatboy's argument far more strongly than you agree (if you do) with
> Belldandy, but ultimately, is it still just the same - standing by a
> particularly strong personal belief, and when someone disagrees,
> considering them outright 'wrong' for their diference of opinion?
> Should it really matter how we classify the belief in question?
Speaking personally I get the impression that, despite his protestations, Goatboy is willing to listen to the views of others and modify his own if he feels a valid enough point has been made. Not that he won't argue the toss in the meantime, but you get the idea.
Belldandy gives the impression that, if faced with the views of others, the shutters will come down and he will be unable to respond with much beyond abuse and sophistry. I would have an awful lot more respect for him if he actually tried to debate a point occasionally rather than always resorting to tactics that are the internet equivalent of hair pulling and name calling.
That's my two cents anyway. And now my head hurts dammit!
> On one hand, you could distinguish the two as existing on seperate
> levels - Belldandy's style of criticism as *within* a difference of
> opinion while Goatboy's regards how we conduct ourselves *when faced
> with* a difference of opinion.
> But is this distinction really valid? While you may agree with
> Goatboy's argument far more strongly than you agree (if you do) with
> Belldandy, but ultimately, is it still just the same - standing by a
> particularly strong personal belief, and when someone disagrees,
> considering them outright 'wrong' for their diference of opinion?
> Should it really matter how we classify the belief in question?
Speaking personally I get the impression that, despite his protestations, Goatboy is willing to listen to the views of others and modify his own if he feels a valid enough point has been made. Not that he won't argue the toss in the meantime, but you get the idea.
Belldandy gives the impression that, if faced with the views of others, the shutters will come down and he will be unable to respond with much beyond abuse and sophistry. I would have an awful lot more respect for him if he actually tried to debate a point occasionally rather than always resorting to tactics that are the internet equivalent of hair pulling and name calling.
That's my two cents anyway. And now my head hurts dammit!
You do make some valid points.
However, what I resent is being told "I'm wrong". I haven't told Belldandy he's wrong in his views, I've tried to explain why I think the way I do.
I dont contradict Belldandy's viewpoints, merely try to highlight why I think the way I do only to me met with "rubbish" and "you're wrong".
I never tell him he's wrong to think the way he does, until my views are dismissed because they do not sit with how he views the world.
And the fact he's bailed and left a superior-toned "smashing your ideas" post highlights the arrogance of assuming you all about a subject and that we're all wrong for thinking the way we do.
Light has presented some decent points, and previously Belldandy has made a point of replying to each and every post made when he feels he's got the upper hand.
Personally, I think he has no comeback to Light and instead of saying so, he has run away sulking.
However, what I resent is being told "I'm wrong". I haven't told Belldandy he's wrong in his views, I've tried to explain why I think the way I do.
I dont contradict Belldandy's viewpoints, merely try to highlight why I think the way I do only to me met with "rubbish" and "you're wrong".
I never tell him he's wrong to think the way he does, until my views are dismissed because they do not sit with how he views the world.
And the fact he's bailed and left a superior-toned "smashing your ideas" post highlights the arrogance of assuming you all about a subject and that we're all wrong for thinking the way we do.
Light has presented some decent points, and previously Belldandy has made a point of replying to each and every post made when he feels he's got the upper hand.
Personally, I think he has no comeback to Light and instead of saying so, he has run away sulking.
Hmm. After following the thread without having felt i had anything to add that hadn't been said, one question does sit blearily on my mind:
Belldandy: Has his political views, will disrespect (to an extent, in certain circumstances) differing views of other people.
Eg (earlier post, this thread): "I will not lie and say I respect views on some subjects that do not agree with mine. I'm honest, I will not lie like some and type half heartedly 'I respect your views on this'."
Goatboy (and others): Has philosophic views about respecting opinions of others, regardless of whether you agree.
Though seems to level criticism at Belldandy in the same way Belldandy will when he doesn't respect someone's opinion (ie, telling someone their opinion is 'wrong', etc).
Eg (again, earlier in the thread): "And Belldandy, I'm sick of you mindlessly following anything and everything this government and The United States tell you is truth and how to think."
You may see where i'm going here, but before you jump ahead, i'd like to make it clear that i'm not sure where i stand on this myself, whether i agree with what i'm about to suggest.
On one hand, you could distinguish the two as existing on seperate levels - Belldandy's style of criticism as *within* a difference of opinion while Goatboy's regards how we conduct ourselves *when faced with* a difference of opinion.
But is this distinction really valid? While you may agree with Goatboy's argument far more strongly than you agree (if you do) with Belldandy, but ultimately, is it still just the same - standing by a particularly strong personal belief, and when someone disagrees, considering them outright 'wrong' for their diference of opinion?
Should it really matter how we classify the belief in question?
I know Goatboy feels strongly about understanding where the other side's coming from, and accepting the different view, and will stand by this very strongly.
But that's my(?) point - exchange the username and the opinion held so strongly, and you have Belldandy's side of things.
And if you don't see how Goatboy's opinion of Belldandy can be wrong, isn't that the same as how Belldandy seems unable to see how the concerned US policy can be wrong?
But just because you try to see where the other side is coming from and fail, does that mean you can't still say 'hey, i disagree, but that's cool'? Only this time on the matter of how you treat others' opinions instead of on the matter of your politics.
When i started writing this, i wasn't clear where i stood on this stuff. Right now it's clearer than it was, but i still feel like i'm on pretty shakey ground. I hope what i'm trying to say has been clear. If not, i'll gladly have another go when my head's got around it a little better if anyone wants.
So long as you make sense of it, how about you give it some thought, even if you don't agree entirely?
So now i look to the question of how strongly i could stand by the point of the post against someone who disagreed.
I guess that's the nature of having an opinion, it means you have to believe in somthing. And that something can always be questioned.
But looking for a higher principle to believe in, isn't that equivalent to 'so who made God' or 'what was before / caused the big bang' - never giving an ultimate answer, just pushing the search up a level?
My head hurts, i'm out.
Belldandy: Has his political views, will disrespect (to an extent, in certain circumstances) differing views of other people.
Eg (earlier post, this thread): "I will not lie and say I respect views on some subjects that do not agree with mine. I'm honest, I will not lie like some and type half heartedly 'I respect your views on this'."
Goatboy (and others): Has philosophic views about respecting opinions of others, regardless of whether you agree.
Though seems to level criticism at Belldandy in the same way Belldandy will when he doesn't respect someone's opinion (ie, telling someone their opinion is 'wrong', etc).
Eg (again, earlier in the thread): "And Belldandy, I'm sick of you mindlessly following anything and everything this government and The United States tell you is truth and how to think."
You may see where i'm going here, but before you jump ahead, i'd like to make it clear that i'm not sure where i stand on this myself, whether i agree with what i'm about to suggest.
On one hand, you could distinguish the two as existing on seperate levels - Belldandy's style of criticism as *within* a difference of opinion while Goatboy's regards how we conduct ourselves *when faced with* a difference of opinion.
But is this distinction really valid? While you may agree with Goatboy's argument far more strongly than you agree (if you do) with Belldandy, but ultimately, is it still just the same - standing by a particularly strong personal belief, and when someone disagrees, considering them outright 'wrong' for their diference of opinion?
Should it really matter how we classify the belief in question?
I know Goatboy feels strongly about understanding where the other side's coming from, and accepting the different view, and will stand by this very strongly.
But that's my(?) point - exchange the username and the opinion held so strongly, and you have Belldandy's side of things.
And if you don't see how Goatboy's opinion of Belldandy can be wrong, isn't that the same as how Belldandy seems unable to see how the concerned US policy can be wrong?
But just because you try to see where the other side is coming from and fail, does that mean you can't still say 'hey, i disagree, but that's cool'? Only this time on the matter of how you treat others' opinions instead of on the matter of your politics.
When i started writing this, i wasn't clear where i stood on this stuff. Right now it's clearer than it was, but i still feel like i'm on pretty shakey ground. I hope what i'm trying to say has been clear. If not, i'll gladly have another go when my head's got around it a little better if anyone wants.
So long as you make sense of it, how about you give it some thought, even if you don't agree entirely?
So now i look to the question of how strongly i could stand by the point of the post against someone who disagreed.
I guess that's the nature of having an opinion, it means you have to believe in somthing. And that something can always be questioned.
But looking for a higher principle to believe in, isn't that equivalent to 'so who made God' or 'what was before / caused the big bang' - never giving an ultimate answer, just pushing the search up a level?
My head hurts, i'm out.
Well, it was just a vocal indication of raising this thread from lower down but hey...
Goatboy wrote:
> *pop*
Hmm...the sound of a fevered ego bursting....sweeeeeeeeeeeeet!
> *pop*
Hmm...the sound of a fevered ego bursting....sweeeeeeeeeeeeet!
*pop*
Whats the phrase?
"One mans terrorist is another mans freedom-fighter".
It all depends on what side you are looking from doesn't it?
"One mans terrorist is another mans freedom-fighter".
It all depends on what side you are looking from doesn't it?
Page: