RD.net to be re-revamped!

[Coito ergo sum]

"But for his terrible taste, and naivety - aye... "

You need to learn how to read humans better.

I'll work on that.

A lot of Dawkins naivete, as LordP has recounted, involves his overall dealings with people, which seem to extend to anyone he puts his trust into, whether business-wise or whether personally. And, thinking someone has terrible taste doesn't necessarily mean one is on some sort of grudge-mission against the bloke.

Maybe stick to attacking facts instead of motives.

For all of the complexities, humans are driven by so very few motivators. Some people are easier to read than a takeaway pamphlet (with more spelling mistakes).

Very often, those who think they can "read" other people have nothing but their own preconceived notions to support their reading. Moreover, having a motive doesn't mean one acted in conformity with that motive, and having a motive to say something negative doesn't mean that the negative statement is false. That's why attacking motive only goes so far, and it's best to stick to attacking facts.

[Red Celt]

Very often, those who think they can "read" other people have nothing but their own preconceived notions to support their reading. Moreover, having a motive doesn't mean one acted in conformity with that motive, and having a motive to say something negative doesn't mean that the negative statement is false. That's why attacking motive only goes so far, and it's best to stick to attacking facts.

Very often, those who think that other people have nothing but their own preconceived notions, are people who lack certain skills and are less likely to see those skills in others.

[Coito ergo sum]

Very often, those who think they can "read" other people have nothing but their own preconceived notions to support their reading. Moreover, having a motive doesn't mean one acted in conformity with that motive, and having a motive to say something negative doesn't mean that the negative statement is false. That's why attacking motive only goes so far, and it's best to stick to attacking facts.

Very often, those who think that other people have nothing but their own preconceived notions, are people who lack certain skills and are less likely to see those skills in others.

Very often, some people presume too much.

[lordpasternack]

I'm just impressed that he is 70 years old, and still solidly banging chicks left and right. Either a testament to good genes and healthy living, or a testament to the value of Viagra or Cialis. LOL. Either way, more power to 'im!

But for his terrible taste, and naivety - aye...

Translation: He didn't bang ME! (cue motivation for hate campaign)

Oh, just sod off - Red Celt. I've known you all of five minutes - and you preach to me about skepticism - all the while presuming you know EVERYTHING required to grasp this situation, and me and my psychology, and how I'm therefore obviously wrong, and I'm not being skeptical enough about this claim and that claim, incidental to my overall argument. And you're not interested in anything I have to say because of that vast swathe of preconceptions you've amassed about me in all of five minutes. I understand how easy it is to prejudge messy situations sometimes - but you're not even willing to hear anything to the contrary.

And you also accuse me of "hate campaigning" while you keep returning to this thread to chew me out with crap based on virtually NOTHING but your sense of conviction, and how you just know... I'm not interested. It's irrelevant. You waste my time and offer nothing. It's just dismissive ad-hom after ad-hom...

But if it satisfies you in some way - why don't you go PM Pappa and ask him if he remembers what was said when we had a very brief conversation in Nottingham a year or so ago, about the idea of me going after Richard Dawkins? Though, I do apologise profusely for the fact that we neglected to take video footage and log the conversation properly at the time - for your later inspection and satisfaction...

Alternatively - why don't you listen a little more to Coito - who knows numerous facets of this situation better than you do - including Richard's documented naivety in other areas?

[Red Celt]

Very often, those who think they can "read" other people have nothing but their own preconceived notions to support their reading. Moreover, having a motive doesn't mean one acted in conformity with that motive, and having a motive to say something negative doesn't mean that the negative statement is false. That's why attacking motive only goes so far, and it's best to stick to attacking facts.

Very often, those who think that other people have nothing but their own preconceived notions, are people who lack certain skills and are less likely to see those skills in others.

Very often, some people presume too much.

Very often... [fill in the blank]

[Red Celt]

Oh, just sod off - Red Celt. I've known you all of five minutes - and you preach to me about skepticism - all the while presuming you know EVERYTHING required to grasp this situation, and me and my psychology, and how I'm therefore obviously wrong, and I'm not being skeptical enough about this claim and that claim, incidental to my overall argument.

Read this thread, you demented harpy. You were going on about this same shit 6/7 months ago. I'm not alone in saying "put up or shut up" or "put up and shut up" or (preferably) "shut up".

Obsessional much?

[lordpasternack]

Oh, just sod off - Red Celt. I've known you all of five minutes - and you preach to me about skepticism - all the while presuming you know EVERYTHING required to grasp this situation, and me and my psychology, and how I'm therefore obviously wrong, and I'm not being skeptical enough about this claim and that claim, incidental to my overall argument.

Read this thread, you demented harpy. You were going on about this same shit 6/7 months ago. I'm not alone in saying "put up or shut up" or "put up and shut up" or (preferably) "shut up".

Obsessional much?

I don't think you even understand what ad hominem means - to be honest...

And I have been putting up things that are enough for others familiar with the overall situation.

And I'm reporting your post for insulting me. Please don't have a crying fit if you happen to get suspended for 24 hours or something, again...

[Coito ergo sum]

Oh, just sod off - Red Celt. I've known you all of five minutes - and you preach to me about skepticism - all the while presuming you know EVERYTHING required to grasp this situation, and me and my psychology, and how I'm therefore obviously wrong, and I'm not being skeptical enough about this claim and that claim, incidental to my overall argument.

Read this thread, you demented harpy. You were going on about this same shit 6/7 months ago. I'm not alone in saying "put up or shut up" or "put up and shut up" or (preferably) "shut up".

Obsessional much?

Well, it has been a long, drawn out legal affair. As new events transpire, LordP drops updates here.

You seem to have overreacted quite a bit, but that seems to be typical of you. You have an inability to depersonalize discussions. And, as is your usual practice, you've launched into personal attacks again. If the conversation is not something you want to engage in, why not proceed to a thread you like better instead of trying to "shut up" those who are interested in this discussion.

[Red Celt]

I don't think you even understand what ad hominem means - to be honest...

And I'm reporting your post for insulting me. Please don't have a crying fit if you happen to get suspended for 24 hours or something, again...

Some see an insult. Some see a truth. I see the truth, but whatever. Spam that report button to your heart's content... if you can't handle the truth.

[lordpasternack]

Some see an insult. Some see a truth. I see the truth, but whatever. Spam that report button to your heart's content... if you can't handle the truth.

Oh, truthy, truth, truth, truth - because you just know, Mr Amazing Skeptic...

And yeah - one reports insults because one "can't handle the truth". That's how it works here. I only hope it makes you feel a bit more like a martyr on your next suspension.

[Coito ergo sum]

Some see an insult. Some see a truth. I see the truth, but whatever. Spam that report button to your heart's content... if you can't handle the truth.

You're also not understanding that just because something is true doesn't mean it is not an insult. Calling a gay person a fag may be literally true, but if you do it here you'll probably be warned for a personal attack. Now, your use of the term "demented harpy" is literally false. So, if you "see truth" there it can only be in the figurative sense. Calling her a demented harpy would be like calling you a giant douche or a shit eating cock-knocker (by way of example, and not actually directing that at you) are very difficult to verify empirically. However, even if they were assumed to be "true" in some sense, they'd still be personal attacks which are against the rules here.

[Red Celt]

Now, your use of the term "demented harpy" is literally false.

In your opinion, perhaps.

de·ment·ed (d-mntd)
adj.
1. Mentally ill; insane.
2. Suffering from dementia or a loss of cognitive function.

harpy [ˈhɑːpɪ]
n pl -pies
a cruel grasping woman
[from Latin Harpyia, from Greek Harpuiai the Harpies, literally: snatchers, from harpazein to seize]

[Coito ergo sum]

harpy [ˈhɑːpɪ]
n pl -pies
a cruel grasping woman
[from Latin Harpyia, from Greek Harpuiai the Harpies, literally: snatchers, from harpazein to seize]

That's the secondary meaning. meaning "1" in the dictionary and/or the googles is a monster with the head and body of a woman and the wings and claws of a bird.

But, needless to say, truth is a defense to a defamation claim, but not a personal attack claim. Like, someone calling you an flaming asshat. You may well be one, but it would be a personal attack to call you that here.

[Red Celt]

That's the secondary meaning. meaning "1" in the dictionary and/or the googles is a monster with the head and body of a woman and the wings and claws of a bird.

And it was the secondary meaning that I was using. What point are you trying to make by raising that?

I am fully aware that it was a personal attack, btw. A very mild one, mind, given that it was true.

But hey ho.

[Coito ergo sum]

That's the secondary meaning. meaning "1" in the dictionary and/or the googles is a monster with the head and body of a woman and the wings and claws of a bird.

And it was the secondary meaning that I was using. What point are you trying to make by raising that?

The literal meaning is the bird/woman monster. The figurative meaning is a woman with the characteristics OF that monster (grasping, mean woman). Get it?

I am fully aware that it was a personal attack, btw. A very mild one, mind, given that it was true.

But hey ho.

It's not "true," it's your opinion. It's definitely not "literally" true, it can only be figuratively true in the sense of suggesting that she has the traits of the mythical harpy. In that latter sense, you have no empirical data to back up your claim, and you don't know her, so you can't possibly have personal knowledge of her being a "demented harpy." You're just pulling it out of the air. So even if it were true, you have no personal knowledge, no information on which to base, that belief. It's truth and your assertion of it would be pure coincidence -- like someone guessing that the answer to a math problem is 5 and by happenstance being correct.

It's a personal attack, plain and simple. And, you keep saying "but it's true!!!" as if that amounts to some sort of a defense. It doesn't. Think, McFly, think.