Christians who don't make my skin crawl!

[SusanDoris]

Not sure what the point of listening to posts is in relation to perception. Reading doesn't have a tone different from listening unless it is superimposed by the brain and that would surely apply to listening too? If you know it's a post by someone you disagree with, your brain could easily impose tone on what you listen to.

Yes, that is true, but listening is much slower than reading, especially if I listen several times, so that I think I am far less likely to make an instant judgement, whether I know the person's style and opinions or not.
I also have to listen to my response several times too, so that too puts brakes on too rapid a response.

[SusanDoris]

Susan

If imagining my possible motivations and posting the above comment on this forum provides you with some mild enjoyment, ok. I post on here for mild enjoyment too.

The back and forth stuff between me and BHS is a game - as in no point in anyone taking it seriously. BHS does his style of posting when challenging posts and I do mine. Your preference of people's style of posting  is up to you. I'm not looking for a cheerleader, though you seem to feel it's part of your enjoyment of this forum to provide that service for posters you agree with. But if you feel like adding to the entertainment by  booing and hissing when my posts come along - ok.

I do not come here just for entertainment – that would be a superficial and trivial attitude and that is not me.
I am so glad I found message boards when so many other activities were no longer available to me because they provided, and still provide most of the time, a stimulating  intellectual hobby.
I think your last sentence is irrelevant and unnecessary. You can categorise my posts in any way you like, but I would be grateful if  you would avoid projEcting your categorising ideas as mine.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I do not come here just for entertainment – that would be a superficial and trivial attitude and that is not me.
I am so glad I found message boards when so many other activities were no longer available to me because they provided, and still provide most of the time, a stimulating  intellectual hobby.
I think your last sentence is irrelevant and unnecessary. You can categorise my posts in any way you like, but I would be grateful if  you would avoid projEcting your categorising ideas as mine.

You projected motives to my posts but you want me to stop projecting categories onto your posts? I'm afraid you started the ball rolling Susan.

By the way, I have no idea if you do want to boo and hiss at my posts - but as I said, if you did want to boo and hiss, I was just letting you know I don't mind.

I am categorising your # 346 as a post that is disapproving of my posts. I think there might have been 1 post of mine on this forum that you approved of.

I am categorising your posts where you say "well said" as cheerleading.

How are you categorising #346 and posts where you say "well done"?

I am assuming you write such posts because it gives you some enjoyment. I am also assuming this forum is entertaining for some posters. And I agree that it also provides a lot of insights and links to useful information.

[ProfessorDavey]

asked what?

To explain why I had made the comments I did in reply 306, rather than jumping to conclusions that it was something to do with an assumption that I believe that atheists don't make statements of certainty about things that don't merit certainty.

[Nearly Sane]

To explain why I had made the comments I did in reply 306, rather than jumping to conclusions that it was something to do with an assumption that I believe that atheists don't make statements of certainty about things that don't merit certainty.

Do you always ask why people have made comments?

[ProfessorDavey]

Do you always ask why people have made comments?

Of course I don't always ask people to explain why they have made comments.

But I do regularly ask for clarifications or explanation of posts where it isn't clear to me why a poster is making a particularly point.

Reply 270 on this very thread, to you, being a very good example.

That seems to be the appropriate thing to do, rather than jumping to (completely wrong) conclusions based on (incorrect) assumptions of the motivation behind the poster's post, as you did.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Of course I don't always ask people to explain why they have made comments.

But I do regularly ask for clarifications or explanation of posts where it isn't clear to me why a poster is making a particularly point.

Reply 270 on this very thread, to you, being a very good example.

That seems to be the appropriate thing to do, rather than jumping to (completely wrong) conclusions based on (incorrect) assumptions of the motivation behind the poster's post, as you did.

It's amusing to see you trying to school other posters about not jumping to conclusions when you sometimes don't ask for clarification yourself, and instead make assumptions and jump to conclusions. Consider your #189 on this very thread where you said:

"However I have never seen any actually verifiable quantitative data that indicates that faith schools are more popular than no faith schools despite the clear implication of those who use anecdotes as if it were strong evidence."

Followed by your #218:

"I have never seen any credible data (based on all schools, not just a cherry picked one or two) that faith schools are more popular than no faith. All the actual evidence supports the opposite conclusion.

But of course the media and faith school apologist will endlessly trot out anecdotes about individual popular faith schools, usually involving non religious parents going to church to get in."

Did you ask for clarification as to whether I was using my anecdote as an anecdote or as strong evidence when I mentioned my atheist friends in Tunbridge Wells trying to get their child into a popular faith primary school ?

Did you even ask for clarification about whether I was trying to imply that generally faith schools are more popular than non-faith schools or if I was just talking about a particular area - Tunbridge Wells, given that I had made no statement about the popularity of faith schools compared to non-faith schools?

And by the way did you note that I provided the evidence you asked for about the situation in Tunbridge Wells or did you just ignore it?

If you jump to conclusions based on your assumptions about theists, you just end up looking hypocritical when you to try to lecture other posters about not jumping to conclusions.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's amusing to see you trying to school other posters about not jumping to conclusions when you sometimes don't ask for clarification yourself, and instead make assumptions and jump to conclusions. Consider your #189 on this very thread where you said:

"However I have never seen any actually verifiable quantitative data that indicates that faith schools are more popular than no faith schools despite the clear implication of those who use anecdotes as if it were strong evidence."

Followed by your #218:

"I have never seen any credible data (based on all schools, not just a cherry picked one or two) that faith schools are more popular than no faith. All the actual evidence supports the opposite conclusion.

But of course the media and faith school apologist will endlessly trot out anecdotes about individual popular faith schools, usually involving non religious parents going to church to get in."

Did you ask for clarification as to whether I was using my anecdote as an anecdote or as strong evidence when I mentioned my atheist friends in Tunbridge Wells trying to get their child into a popular faith primary school ?

Did you even ask for clarification about whether I was trying to imply that generally faith schools are more popular than non-faith schools or if I was just talking about a particular area - Tunbridge Wells, given that I had made no statement about the popularity of faith schools compared to non-faith schools?

And by the way did you note that I provided the evidence you asked for about the situation in Tunbridge Wells or did you just ignore it?

If you jump to conclusions based on your assumptions about theists, you just end up looking hypocritical when you to try to lecture other posters about not jumping to conclusions.

I suggest you re-read reply 189.

My challenge to you was the use of anecdote, which I merely countered with a different anecdote.

The point being that anecdote isn't valuable - that data is - hence I then provided data.

If I got this wrong and:

'I know atheists who choose to send their children to faith schools because they are good schools, compared to the non-faith schools in their area.'

is in fact not an anecdote, then I apologise. But frankly I'm struggling to see how it could be interpreted as anything other than an anecdote. And, of course, I wasn't the only person challenging you on your use of anecdote, was I.

My challenge to you was nothing like NS's baseless and completely incorrect assertion as to why I had made the comment I did.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I suggest you re-read reply 189.

My challenge to you was the use of anecdote, which I merely countered with a different anecdote.

The point being that anecdote isn't valuable - that data is - hence I then provided data.

If I got this wrong and:

'I know atheists who choose to send their children to faith schools because they are good schools, compared to the non-faith schools in their area.'

is in fact not an anecdote, then I apologise. But frankly I'm struggling to see how it could be interpreted as anything other than an anecdote. And, of course, I wasn't the only person challenging you on your use of anecdote, was I.

My challenge to you was nothing like NS's baseless and completely incorrect assertion as to why I had made the comment I did.

Of course my 'I know atheists who choose to send their children to faith schools because they are good schools, compared to the non-faith schools in their area.' is an anecdote. That is my point - it was never intended to be strong evidence.

If I wanted to present strong evidence I provide a link to evidence, which I did when you asked for evidence of Tunbridge Wells schools. I was not presenting evidence - I just assumed my friends were not lying to me - and anecdotes are perfectly acceptable if people are having a discussion of opinions rather than presenting evidence to establish a general rule or fact. I made no generalisation about whether faith schools on average were more popular than non-faith schools.

And, by the way, I research my links a bit more than BHS did with his replication of a link about Religious Trauma Syndrome, from a psychologist who does not appear to have been peer-reviewed

You presumably jumped to the conclusion that because I was a theist I was trying to make a general point that that "faith schools are more popular than no faith schools" and your #189 said that this was the "clear implication of those who use anecdotes as if it were strong evidence."

ETA - as for you reminding me that BHS was challenging my use of anecdote - he spends most of his time on here grandstanding and generalising without presenting any evidence so I doubt anyone on here is going to take his challenges seriously.

[ProfessorDavey]

Of course my 'I know atheists who choose to send their children to faith schools because they are good schools, compared to the non-faith schools in their area.' is an anecdote. That is my point - it was never intended to be strong evidence.

Then what was the point of mentioning your anecdote, which as I pointed out can be counted with countless other one which are equally as useless in taking any discussion forward.

My challenge was clearly about your use of anecdote in discussion (which you cannot challenge as you clearly accept it to be an anecdote). And you are, sadly, as serious offender in resorting to pointless anecdote in discussions, something you have been challenged on by other posters too. Indeed including on this thread.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Then what was the point of mentioning your anecdote, which as I pointed out can be counted with countless other one which are equally as useless in taking any discussion forward.

My challenge was clearly about your use of anecdote in discussion (which you cannot challenge as you clearly accept it to be an anecdote). And you are, sadly, as serious offender in reporting to pointless anecdote in discussions, something you have been challenged on by other posters too. Indeed including on this thread.

The point of mentioning the anecdote was that it formed part of my opinion on why al faith schools do not need to be abolished as some seem to provide a good education results even for atheist parents and there is no problem with anecdotes - this forum is full of them - they are interesting parts of a discussion as it often helps explain why people hold the opinion that they do. If you consider it an offence feel free to lobby to introduce a rule banning all anecdotes - otherwise you will just have to get used to the fact that anecdotes are an integral part of the forum. You're welcome to challenge them - if people want to they can provide you evidence of the anecdote if they are able to without giving away their real identity, as I did when I provided you evidence of Tunbridge Wells. Or you are welcome to disregard anecdotes.

Your problem is that you were wrong to make assumptions and jump to conclusions that the anecdote was presented as strong evidence for a general principle about the popularity of faith schools vs non-faith. And i have noticed that sadly you are a serial offender in jumping to conclusions and making assumptions about people which is why I explained how hypocritical it was for you to lecture other posters about jumping to conclusions.

And like I said BHS doesn't count as challenging me about anecdotes, given his generalisations unsupported by evidence. Who else challenged me by the way? Given most people use anecdotes on here, including yourself about your wife, this should be interesting.

[ProfessorDavey]

And i have noticed that sadly you are a serial offender in jumping to conclusions and making assumptions about people which is why I explained how hypocritical it was for you to lecture other posters about jumping to conclusions.

Examples please.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Examples please.

Apart from what you have done on this thread?

I am not going to look for links. I remember you jumping to conclusions about me being against gay people based on me not answering how I would feel if there was a comment made in classrooms about women being inferior - I can't remember the thread but it was to do with a Scottish teacher or politician possibly using the word "sin" I think. I wanted to stick to the topic of thread and you wanted to jump to conclusions because I said your question was irrelevant to my point.

Feel free to disregard my opinion about you - I am not about to go looking for strong evidence.

[ProfessorDavey]

Apart from what you have done on this thread?

Obviously as you claim I am a serial offender.

I am not going to look for links.

So you are refusing to back up your claim ... hmmm.

I remember you jumping to conclusions about me being against gay people based on me not answering how I would feel if there was a comment made in classrooms about women being inferior - I can't remember the thread but it was to do with a Scottish teacher or politician possibly using the word "sin" I think. I wanted to stick to the topic of thread and you wanted to jump to conclusions because I said your question was irrelevant to my point.

Nope - rings absolutely no bells with me. I suspect you are confusing me with another poster.

Feel free to disregard my opinion about you - I am not about to go looking for strong evidence.

The I will indeed disregard your opinion as it is clearly baseless as you have failed to provide any evidence (strong or otherwise) to back up your claim that I am 'a serial offender in jumping to conclusions and making assumptions about people'.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Obviously as you claim I am a serial offender.
So you are refusing to back up your claim ... hmmm.
Nope - rings absolutely no bells with me. I suspect you are confusing me with another poster.
The I will indeed disregard your opinion as it is clearly baseless as you have failed to provide any evidence (strong or otherwise) to back up your claim that I am 'a serial offender in jumping to conclusions and making assumptions about people'.

Nope - definitely you. I had a look and there are 177 pages of posts by you so not about to go searching for that specific thread. But if you want another example - here's you on the Tim Farron thread assuming I am generalising for everyone again:

Generalising again - if is was OK for you it should be OK for everyone. I'm not talking about you, I am talking about someone else who might end up in your position within that organisation, suffering the most overt of sexual harassment and bullying, and not feel able to deal with it themselves. What about them.

And actually I disagree on the most fundamental levels - once you have an organisation that sanctions the notion that if you are bullied or harassed then the appropriate response is to take the law into your own hands and bully and harass back then we are in a precipitous race to the bottom.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Obviously as you claim I am a serial offender.
So you are refusing to back up your claim ... hmmm.
Nope - rings absolutely no bells with me. I suspect you are confusing me with another poster.
The I will indeed disregard your opinion as it is clearly baseless as you have failed to provide any evidence (strong or otherwise) to back up your claim that I am 'a serial offender in jumping to conclusions and making assumptions about people'.

Here's the thread. I Googled "scotland minister gay sin school" and found the article on Robertson and did a forum search on the word "Robertson".

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=14434.150

[ProfessorDavey]

Here's the thread. I Googled "scotland minister gay sin school" and found the article on Robertson and did a forum search on the word "Robertson".

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=14434.150

On which the key point was complete failure to answer a question - an entirely different matter than jumping to conclusions and making assumptions about people.

And as with the recent anecdote issue, I wasn't the only one having a go at you for your steadfast refusal to answer a simple question.

[ProfessorDavey]

Nope - definitely you. I had a look and there are 177 pages of posts by you so not about to go searching for that specific thread. But if you want another example - here's you on the Tim Farron thread assuming I am generalising for everyone again:

But that is precisely the issue that you are so regularly challenged on - in this case self-anecdote. On that thread my point was precisely not generalising - in other words to make clear that what might have felt OK to you (in your self anecdote) cannot be assumed to be OK for everyone else.

It is effectively the same death by anecdote approach you so often use. So thanks for actually providing an example that provided more more evidence of your anecdote rather than evidence approach, and which provides no justification for your claim of jumping to conclusions and making assumptions about people - indeed that was exactly what you were doing on the basis of your anecdote - namely that if it was Ok for you it should be OK for someone else.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

On which the key point was complete failure to answer a question - an entirely different matter than jumping to conclusions and making assumptions about people.

And as with the recent anecdote issue, I wasn't the only one having a go at you for your steadfast refusal to answer a simple question.

Nope. The key point is you were saying that that my refusal to answer an irrelevant question resulted in you jumping to the following conclusions about me:

"Clearly - it is not a hard question is it really.

You'd think that Gabriella is having some problems because she is appalled by the idea the children being taught that women are inferior, but recognises that if she indicates as such then she can't credibly hold the line that it's OK to teach children that gay people are sinful without being guilty of full-on double standards."

"But clearly the issue of teaching children in schools that women are inferior touches a nerve."
 

Your refusal to answer the simplest of question probably tells us far more than had you actually answered it.

Shame on you.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

But that is precisely the issue that you are so regularly challenged on - in this case self-anecdote. On that thread my point was precisely not generalising - in other words to make clear that what might have felt OK to you (in your self anecdote) cannot be assumed to be OK for everyone else.

It is effectively the same death by anecdote approach you so often use. So thanks for actually providing an example that provided more more evidence of your anecdote rather than evidence approach, and which provides no justification for your claim of jumping to conclusions and making assumptions about people - indeed that was exactly what you were doing on the basis of your anecdote - namely that if it was Ok for you it should be OK for someone else.

You seem to have trouble comprehending posts. I didn't say you were generalising. I said you accused me of generalising when I wasn't generalising - I made a point on that thread about myself - an anecdote - as opposed to a generalising principle for everyone. You seem to have trouble spotting the difference so you jumped to the conclusion that I was generalising for everyone. Hence it's hypocritical for you to lecture other posters about jumping to conclusions rather than asking questions to clarify first.

And yes, as we have established lots of posters include anecdotes, including you about the Church and your wife's experiences.

[ProfessorDavey]

Nope. The key point is you were saying that that my refusal to answer an irrelevant question resulted in you jumping to the following conclusions about me:

"Clearly - it is not a hard question is it really.

You'd think that Gabriella is having some problems because she is appalled by the idea the children being taught that women are inferior, but recognises that if she indicates as such then she can't credibly hold the line that it's OK to teach children that gay people are sinful without being guilty of full-on double standards."

"But clearly the issue of teaching children in schools that women are inferior touches a nerve."

Your point being? I gave you every opportunity to answer my questions and explain your position - when someone steadfastly refuses to respond to a point or answer a question it is perfectly reasonable to challenge them, including to ask them to explain why they are refusing - which I did numerous times.

And anyhow you might want to go back the the very beginning of the discussion in which you once again used self anecdote:

'but as I am not really seeing the problem with someone calling me sinful, I am finding it hard to    share your view.'

to which I responded - 'But it isn't just you - what about others.'

[ProfessorDavey]

You seem to have trouble comprehending posts. I didn't say you were generalising. I said you accused me of generalising when I wasn't generalising - I made a point on that thread about myself - an anecdote - as opposed to a generalising principle for everyone.

Sorry - not a tenable argument.

On the thread about work place practice you were clearly implying that things didn't need to be different, on the basis that you didn't have a problem with your work colleagues behaviour. That is, without doubt, generalising - if it is Ok for me, it must be Ok for everyone.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Your point being? I gave you every opportunity to answer my questions and explain your position - when someone steadfastly refuses to respond to a point or answer a question it is perfectly reasonable to challenge them, including to ask them to explain why they are refusing - which I did numerous times.

And anyhow you might want to go back the the very beginning of the discussion in which you once again used self anecdote:

'but as I am not really seeing the problem with someone calling me sinful, I am finding it hard to    share your view.'

to which I responded - 'But it isn't just you - what about others.'

My point is that it is perfectly reasonable to ask them to answer the question but not to jump to conclusions if you are then going to try and pull another poster up for jumping to conclusions, because it makes you seem hypocritical.

I responded that I wasn't going to answer the question because it was an irrelevant question - which is also a perfectly reasonable response. You then made assumptions about my motives for not responding. I don't have a problem with you doing that. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of you criticising NS on this thread for making assumptions about your motives, when you do the same thing.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Sorry - not a tenable argument.

On the thread about work place practice you were clearly implying that things didn't need to be different, on the basis that you didn't have a problem with your work colleagues behaviour. That is, without doubt, generalising - if it is Ok for me, it must be Ok for everyone.

No, that is you making assumptions again that I was saying "if it is Ok for me, it must be Ok for everyone.". I don't think that my view needs to be adopted by everyone. If I recall correctly, you seemed to be the person who was insisting that your view needs to be adopted by everyone. 

[ProfessorDavey]

My point is that it is perfectly reasonable to ask them to answer the question but not to jump to conclusions if you are then going to try and pull another poster up for jumping to conclusions, because it makes you seem hypocritical.

I responded that I wasn't going to answer the question because it was an irrelevant question - which is also a perfectly reasonable response. You then made assumptions about my motives for not responding. I don't have a problem with you doing that. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of you criticising NS on this thread for making assumptions about your motives, when you do the same thing.

When someone repeatedly refuses to answer a question it is perfectly reasonable to question their motives and, of course, the person challenged can set the matter straight by answering the question and addressing the challenge.

You failed to do that - it was a bit look that famous interview between Michael Howard and Jeremy Paxman.