| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Old Board > Witnessing to Christians |
| Posted by: sexkitten Oct 14 2004, 06:52 PM |
| Printable Version of Topic Click here to view this topic in its original format ExChristian.Net Open Forums > Debating with Christians > Witnessing To Christians Posted by: SteveFDL Apr 27 2004, 11:40 AM Another thread started me thinking about this: If we aggressively try to save (witness) Christians from the chains of their worldview, and witness using the same methods they use on us, many might consider us intolerant, mean or even mocking the Christian. What say you? I've noticed that when I aggressive counter/debate Christian fallacies and false logic, many times I am seen as the mean head. Is it more important to leave Christians alone? ...or if you believe like I do that most evangelicals need witnessing because they've never heard the other side of the historical coin, it is important to share the reality of truth with them? I'm not talking about stopping people on the street and being rude. What I am talking about is this: when the conversation turns to Christianity, hell, et al, are we to keep quiet because our truth might offend Christians? They desperately need to reach us. What is wrong with desperately reachign them? Intolerance is a 2 way street. ...or do we go on saying: Oh, that's nice, you've found God on a stain-soaked cloth! Oh, that's nice, I'm going to burn for all eternity at Satan's party called hell? Posted by: Doug2 Apr 27 2004, 12:18 PM I think we've learned a few things from the christian tactics. Don't go door to door telling people they are not going to hell and looking to convert. That is just annoying. If the question is brought up though, I think you have every right to state your belief and I think you should not have to hid your beliefs from others, especially when they have no problem sharing with you. Crusades/mission trips - bad Correcting people when then have false assumptions about your beliefs/ lack thereof - good Posted by: moorezw Apr 27 2004, 01:04 PM SteveFDL- Even when I was a Christian, I detested evangelism. Now, if I encounter a Mad Fish, I'll usually just nod along, assuming they're not saying anything too stupid. I'm not interested in picking fights; I'm no Atheist Crusader. But if I meet someone, regardless of their belief, who is truly interested in discussing religion, I'll dive right in. Open-minded Christians are as rare as hen's teeth- I wouldn't want to waste an opportunity. Posted by: SOIL Apr 27 2004, 01:08 PM In my case - you don't need to go looking for me (to witness to), hey - I have come to you! Dennis Posted by: Judyism Apr 27 2004, 01:16 PM I post here because the other people here are of a similar belief as myself. I would never, nor have I ever tried to talk someone else out of their beliefs. I do not post on Xtian boards because I believe they have a right to believe whatever they want same as myself. I just ask for the mutual respect from them. That hardly ever happens, tho, when the issue is brought up in conversation in real life.... I am always the heretic. Now, if they show up here, and start "witnessing" then I have no problem laying the smack down. Posted by: SteveFDL Apr 27 2004, 01:18 PM QUOTE (moorezw @ Apr 27 2004, 03:04 PM) SteveFDL- Even when I was a Christian, I detested evangelism. Now, if I encounter a Mad Fish, I'll usually just nod along, assuming they're not saying anything too stupid. I'm not interested in picking fights; I'm no Atheist Crusader. But if I meet someone, regardless of their belief, who is truly interested in discussing religion, I'll dive right in. Open-minded Christians are as rare as hen's teeth- I wouldn't want to waste an opportunity. Most Christians do. Posted by: SteveFDL Apr 27 2004, 01:20 PM QUOTE (SOIL @ Apr 27 2004, 03:08 PM) In my case - you don't need to go looking for me (to witness to), hey - I have come to you! Dennis Will you let truth into your heart? Posted by: SteveFDL Apr 27 2004, 01:26 PM QUOTE (Judyism @ Apr 27 2004, 03:16 PM) I post here because the other people here are of a similar belief as myself. I would never, nor have I ever tried to talk someone else out of their beliefs. I do not post on Xtian boards because I believe they have a right to believe whatever they want same as myself. I just ask for the mutual respect from them. That hardly ever happens, tho, when the issue is brought up in conversation in real life.... I am always the heretic. Now, if they show up here, and start "witnessing" then I have no problem laying the smack down. It is easy to say that are beliefs are equal, and that we should tolerate everyone's viewpoint, but reality is far different than this. One God, Our Way religions do not have a track record of treating humanity nicely. While on paper my heart would love for this to be true, the fact remains that religions are enslaving/slaughtering people(s) as we speak. All truth is not created equal. This is the lie of tolerance. Its a fantasy that everyone will get together and share a hug. We need to come down on the side of non-violence, and pursue the promotion of this every chance we get. I will not be rude to Christians, but I will share logical errors if they open the can of worms and call it truth. If someone stops we on the street and says "Unicorns are our salvation", I could: 1) Walk away 2) Debate him I would walk away. But if he aggressively persisted beyond this, I would counter with a kung fu logic chop. Posted by: Judyism Apr 27 2004, 02:20 PM true, but I tend to at least attempt to lead by example. With the exception of posting here and calling a few people fucking morons. But I do that in real life, so.... I almost felt guilty yesterday.... I threw away all of the religious pamphlets some nice person left all over the post office. Whenever I see them laying about, into file 13 they go. heh Posted by: Rameus Apr 27 2004, 02:54 PM Here is my Four Step Program for Witnessing to Christians: 1. Put a bookcase full of Egyptology texts in a small room. 2. Lock a Christian fundamentalist in aforementioned small room for 6 months. 3. Unlock door to small room. 4. Hand ex-Christian fundamentalist their de-conversion paperwork. Rameus Posted by: BlueGiant Apr 27 2004, 03:50 PM I can't say that I desprately try to reach them, more wake them up. All I really try to do when I am engaging Christians is to correct the obvious errors that they make (historical, factual, objective errors, not their misguided beleifs), and to get them to start asking themselves questions. Yes, I know that I am destroying their faith if I am successful, but by getting them to start looking for their own answers, I feel that I am indeed making them aware that there is something better out there. Essentially is is a bit 'o demolition before building somehting new. Of course they always seem to fire the first shot in the debate. It seems that I usually fire the last. Posted by: Madame M Apr 27 2004, 08:01 PM I won't bite unless I am provoked. I was never one for witnessing when I was a Christian. So I am not going to evangelize non-belief. For the most part, I have no interest in utterly laying waste to anyone's beliefs. I figure if I was intelligent enough to seek out information, then so are others. Well, some others, I know people who could never give up their faith. Honestly, I know people who are too dumb to ask questions and do something different than the crowd. "If it be good enuff for my pa, it be good enuff for me." If a Christian comes on to a skeptics debate board, they are fair game though. I do try to get the christians and catholics in my life to think a bit rationally, but honestly, it is a losing battle. In one ear and out the other. The usual reaction to any challenge, even mild, is defensiveness. Always wondered why, if Christianity is the truth, Christians can't handle even mild faith challenges in real life. Posted by: SteveFDL Apr 27 2004, 08:41 PM QUOTE (Rameus @ Apr 27 2004, 04:54 PM) Here is my Four Step Program for Witnessing to Christians: 1. Put a bookcase full of Egyptology texts in a small room. 2. Lock a Christian fundamentalist in aforementioned small room for 6 months. 3. Unlock door to small room. 4. Hand ex-Christian fundamentalist their de-conversion paperwork. Rameus I assume you're familiar with Gerald Massey? Posted by: JasonLong Apr 27 2004, 11:44 PM I've deconverted one person in my entire life. That's sad. I'm far too hostile, I think. I haven't been doing this long though. As far as people believing what they want to believe, that's fine. However, when these beliefs start affecting others, problems ensue. If George W. Bush, the biggest idiot I've seen in my entire life, wants to believe he's born-again, that's fine. When he says that God told him to strike the Iraqis and al-qaeda, and he does, I have a problem. If 1840s America thought God loved them, that was fine. When they told others God wanted settlers to force their way through the continent, I have a problem. If a parent believes the universe's creator wrote the Bible, that's fine. When they inflict this belief on their children, I have a problem. Basically, I'm very passive about the subject in person. I'll go to yard sales sometimes on the weekend and find some good liteature. Vintage Strong's, Nave's, various biblical translations, etc. etc. Whenever I go to buy it, someone has to witness. Okay, I'm on their property at their house, I don't really have a right to tell them why they're spewing nonsense. Sometimes they'll ask if I'm a Christian. I'll say that I used to be or that I'm a loose deist or that I'm agnostic. Any of those really fit, I suppose. Most of the time my girlfriend is with me. She wouldn't want to sit there while I dismantle pop-apologetic arguments. It's too easy. She loathes missionaries. Where am I going with this? Yes, I believe we have a duty to contain this nonsense movement. It's been going on too long and has caused too much devastation in this world. Do we really think Israel and Palestine would be fighting if they were the same religion? If there was no Bible to justify slavery, would it have persisted so long? If there was no Bible, would America have had an excuse to eradicate the Native Americans? If there were no Ten Commandments, would people have a reason to loathe those who wanted freedom from religion? Posted by: TexasFreethinker Apr 28 2004, 04:10 AM For people who are already questioning and searching (such as many people who visit this site), I think it's fine to go directly into "witness" mode. However, for people who aren't at that point in their life, I think emulating the christian fundy witness approach is very non-productive. In those cases, you have to develop a relationship with the person before the topic can be brought up. You can't just walk up to a person on the street and say "Chrisitianity is wrong" and expect a good outcome. Christians have the same problem with "cold call" selling of their faith. The advantage they have over us is their use of threats and promises. They can scare people into believing they are on their way to hell, and then promise them eternal life in a really nice place if they'll just believe. All we have to offer is a life based on truth and reality. It's a better offer once you understand it, but it's a much harder sell. Posted by: TexasFreethinker Apr 28 2004, 04:26 AM QUOTE (EMANUEL GOLDSTEIN II @ Apr 28 2004, 07:19 AM) So freethinker offers life based on "truth and reality". And, from your particular atheist perspective, what is "reality". Or "truth" for that matter. And please give me an objective answer...not just something based on the biochemical processes of your particular organic brain. We offer a life where people are free to use reason to understand the universe, rather than relying on the revelations of an invisible supernatural being (as translated by its self-appointed prophets and priests). Fact vs. fantasy. Senses vs. mysticism. Reason vs. revelation. Hope that wasn't too organic for you. Posted by: UV2003 Apr 28 2004, 05:49 AM QUOTE (Madame M @ Apr 27 2004, 08:01 PM) I won't bite unless I am provoked. I was never one for witnessing when I was a Christian. So I am not going to evangelize non-belief. For the most part, I have no interest in utterly laying waste to anyone's beliefs. I figure if I was intelligent enough to seek out information, then so are others. Well, some others, I know people who could never give up their faith. Honestly, I know people who are too dumb to ask questions and do something different than the crowd. "If it be good enuff for my pa, it be good enuff for me." If a Christian comes on to a skeptics debate board, they are fair game though. I do try to get the christians and catholics in my life to think a bit rationally, but honestly, it is a losing battle. In one ear and out the other. The usual reaction to any challenge, even mild, is defensiveness. Always wondered why, if Christianity is the truth, Christians can't handle even mild faith challenges in real life. Something like this happened yesterday. I played tennis with someone from my work and we went to to dinner and he asked if I was a Christian because he thought I said I had a cousin who is a minister, which is true. I told him I don't take the Bible literally, I see it symbolically and that I have friends from many religious traditions and can respect a belief so long as it includes treating other people with respect. Some who practice Christianity do follow that, while others do not. He did not make it an issue further on. If he had wanted to discuss what I really think, then I would be open to discussing it, but as it was we discussed nature, rivers, lakes, hiking, fishing, etc. There was no need to bring in the book. I'm going to a birthday party Saturday for a friend that will have a lot of Christians there. I was attending their church for a while while thinking about all of this and reading, and now that I no longer go, I expect to be encouraged to come back or asked why. I plan to simply say, "Well, thank you for the invite, but I do not agree with the Church's statement of belief." If they wish to persist and ask me why I will start by saying I do not believe the Bible is "without error" and cease speaking. If they persist, I will just offer one sentence at a time until they tire of it. I'd be just fine if they don't bring it up at all, but if they do I will speak my mind, all the while hoping to get back to the _action_ at hand which should be about celebrating time together now, rather than determining why someone doesn't buy hook-line-and-sinker the words of pepole written thousands of years ago. -UV Posted by: bob Apr 28 2004, 07:16 AM I hate to say it, and I may be banned from the forum for it, but what EGII says in this last post actually makes some sense to me. EG, could you dumb it down a little more for me? I'll come back after I watch "I Love Lucy". Posted by: blake Apr 28 2004, 07:37 AM QUOTE (bob @ Apr 28 2004, 07:16 AM) I hate to say it, and I may be banned from the forum for it, but what EGII says in this last post actually makes some sense to me. Ditto! Everyone has faith in something, be it reason or something supernatural; it's still irrational faith nontheless. I guess the question would be : which of the two yields more fruit - irrational faith in reason, or irrational faith in the supernatural? Posted by: extremeone Apr 28 2004, 09:08 AM QUOTE (JasonLong @ Apr 27 2004, 11:44 PM) Yes, I believe we have a duty to contain this nonsense movement. It's been going on too long and has caused too much devastation in this world. Do we really think Israel and Palestine would be fighting if they were the same religion? If there was no Bible to justify slavery, would it have persisted so long? If there was no Bible, would America have had an excuse to eradicate the Native Americans? If there were no Ten Commandments, would people have a reason to loathe those who wanted freedom from religion? i agree with you 100%.. for me.. i look at religion as a virus,a very strong one.Ideal with this shit everyday(xtians)..and for me.. i think its my obligation to help the sick,if i see someone whome i love commiting braindamage i think its only right to help stop them. I can get heated while defending my position(s) on how i feel about the whole bible story,but when i see someone give me that glazed eye christain stare(ignore'n my ass) i back off knowing i just tap'd into a part of there thinking system that hasnt been tap'd before(truth).. ill give it a rest... till our next metting,or whoever brings it up first. but overall... yea,its a call of duty to free the mind of the ones that are trap'd in the box/book called religion. -EX1 Posted by: Rameus Apr 28 2004, 09:36 AM (by JasonLong) QUOTE Yes, I believe we have a duty to contain this nonsense movement. It's been going on too long and has caused too much devastation in this world. Do we really think Israel and Palestine would be fighting if they were the same religion? If there was no Bible to justify slavery, would it have persisted so long? If there was no Bible, would America have had an excuse to eradicate the Native Americans? If there were no Ten Commandments, would people have a reason to loathe those who wanted freedom from religion? I agree completely. There is a movement in America to gently shove Christianity down the throats of its citizens. Teaching biblical creationism in schools instead of evolution; putting up Christian monuments in public places and not allowing other religions to do so, etc. Anyone who is stupid enough to engage me in a religious discussion is going to get the full fury of my thoughts on the subject. If they get offended then perhaps it will be a lesson for them to learn from; and maybe they will spare the next poor bastard who comes along. QUOTE (by Rameus) Here is my Four Step Program for Witnessing to Christians: 1. Put a bookcase full of Egyptology texts in a small room. 2. Lock a Christian fundamentalist in aforementioned small room for 6 months. 3. Unlock door to small room. 4. Hand ex-Christian fundamentalist their de-conversion paperwork. Rameus (by SteveFDL) I assume you're familiar with Gerald Massey? Yes quite familiar with him. Are you implying that he thought of my formula before I did? If this is true then obviously the devil inspired him with thoughts he knew I was going to have in the future, so as to discredit me in the present. The Christians use this argument so it must be valid... Seriously now, if he has espoused a similar formula then I am at least consciously unaware of it. And obviously mine is far superior, no matter how allegedly similar they may be (another Christian argument). (by _guest) QUOTE I think the way opinions are presented on this site are great...you need to really tell those Chistians what morons they are. The ridicule shames them and breaks down their defenses...they need the shock treatment. Keep up what you are doing. It is really effective. That's good to hear, although sadly I do not see it myself. I have never known anyone who has freed themselves of Christian fundamentalism, and yet I have known many who have fallen into its filthy maw. It sometimes feels like a losing battle waged uphill in a rainstorm. Below is a list of the bumper stickers on my car: "Christians call it faith, I call it the herd" [Nietzsche] "One is not converted to Christianity, one must be morbid enough for it." [Nietzsche] "Belief is not wanting to know what is true" [Nietzsche] Regardless of what Emmanuel Gold_Stupid yammers on about, Nietzsche was brilliant in many ways in my opinion. And admittedly, a bit twisted in others. Rameus Posted by: Rameus Apr 28 2004, 10:01 AM (by Emmanuel Gold_Shit) QUOTE So freethinker offers life based on "truth and reality". And, from your particular atheist perspective, what is "reality". Reality is what we all actually experience, not what we hope or believe we experience. If my brother goes to Iraq to fight to secure America's oil for the next 20 years, I'm going to hope that he doesn't die. But if he dies that's the reality; not what I hoped for the reality to be. If I jump off a building I may believe I'm Peter Pan and can fly; but when I break my neck that's the reality. When Emmanuel Gold_Dipshit arrives at my home to witness Jesus to me he may hope to convert me, but he's going to walk away with a broken jaw; that's the reality. (by Emmanuel_Touches_Children_With_Gold) QUOTE Or "truth" for that matter. Truth is what it is, not what we wish it to be. (by Emmanuel_Has_God_In_His_Pants) QUOTE Freethinker, you are begging the question...that is, you are arguing in a circle. You claim you use "reason" to guide you to truth and reality, and yet that same "reasoning" process is just a biochemical process of the organic brain that is said to have evolved by mindless processess to deal with this particular environment in this particular time; and that is what you base your view of "truth and reality" on. You remind me of a rabid, drunken elephant trying to sneak into a library through the sewer system. You seem obsessed with the phrase "biochemical process of the organic brain". Just because you do not possess the intellect to reconcile intelligence with evolution does not mean that it is impossible. It simply means you are impossibly ignorant. (by Emmanuel Impossibly_Fucking_Numb) QUOTE Further, your thoughts are not free. The leading atheists of the past three centuries believed your path was derived, repectively, from economic factors, subconscious sexual repressions, and DNA (Marx, Freud, and Dawkins.) You seem to be drawing the conclusion that because you have located atheists from the past that believed in a specific assertion, that it implies all atheists in the present must therefore believe in said assertion. By this irreconcilably incompetent logic I am going to conclude that because some Catholic priests in the past believed that the fastest way to god was through the zipper of a child’s pants that you must therefore believe this and indeed practice it regularly. If evolution is true, then I'm convinced you are a fucking gorilla. Remember Emmanuel Apestein, the red button gives you the banana and the blue button sends electrical current into you genitals. Don't get those mixed up. Rameus Posted by: SOIL Apr 28 2004, 10:47 AM methinks perhaps thou protesteth too much. Rameus, I haven't talked with you before - but I will be honest with you now and see if that gets me anywhere that I can stand to be. It seems to me that when some people feel somewhat threatened by something that someone else says - they start getting more insultatory toward them (OK, I admit it - I'm not even sure if "insultatory" is a legitimate word - but I think you probably get my drift here). In the last 24 hours or so I have read several posts which you have made. To tell you the truth I was kind of starting to actually listen to what you were saying - and even give many of your thoughts at least the dignity of exerting an effort to weigh them out - because I recognized your intelligence. However, after reading your most recent post - where you started getting more "insultatory" (and for what specific reason? - I really don't understand - yet) - now I am having a more difficult time actually taking your comments seriously. Don't get me completely wrong though - I do still see the mark of intelligence coming through some of your arguments - however your style (with this last post anyway) has just moved itself as an obstacle in the path of any desire that was awakening in me to actually listen to you. I don't expect you to shed any tears over what I am saying - I guess I am just kind of trying to stay on topic here, about the concept of "Witnessing to Christians". OK - now it's your turn to be honest with me. Dennis Posted by: Dhampir Apr 28 2004, 10:57 AM There must be a definitive reason for doing anything, right? The only reason anybody ever hurls insults is because they are threatened, correct? Is it absolutely impossible that Rameus is judging the intelligence of EG to not be above the vulgarity he is now employing to make his point? If a man devalues his own intelligence by his statements, is it wrong to not respect him? Posted by: The Pure One Apr 28 2004, 11:15 AM QUOTE (Rameus @ Apr 28 2004, 10:01 AM) Remember Emmanuel Apestein, the red button gives you the banana and the blue button sends electrical current into you genitals. Don't get those mixed up. Rameus, you are truly priceless. I wish I could set my preferences to just email me your posts, I hate to miss anything. Posted by: The Pure One Apr 28 2004, 11:24 AM QUOTE (SOIL @ Apr 28 2004, 10:47 AM) recognized your intelligence. However, after reading your most recent post - where you started getting more "insultatory" (and for what specific reason? - I really don't understand - yet) - now I am having a more difficult time actually taking your comments seriously. Hi SOIL, SOIL? I really must start a thread where people explain their names, it would be entertaining. If there is such a thread already, somebody let me know please. The style in which someone says something has little bearing on the logic or truth of what they say. It may color your impression of the person, but that still says nothing about validity of the "meat" of their comments vs. the spice. In this case I think you are simply witnessing the frustration of repeated dealings with a complete goofball. Besides, asking someone to muzzle their comedic talent is just wrong. ;) Posted by: SOIL Apr 28 2004, 11:28 AM QUOTE (Dhampir @ Apr 28 2004, 10:57 AM) ... Is it absolutely impossible that Rameus is judging the intelligence of EG to not be above the vulgarity he is now employing to make his point? If a man devalues his own intelligence by his statements, is it wrong to not respect him? Well, I think this world would be better if we tried to respect everyone simply because they are human (in my case I think that also means they/we have been created in the image of God). I try not to limit my respect for a person to what I think their IQ is (though, admittedly I don't not always succeed in what I try to do). I didn't really latch on to the "vulgarity" of which you speak - concerning the comments of the unregistered person who identified himself as EMANUEL GOLDSTEIN II. I don't want to hear anyone being vulgar - (and especially not when talking to Tex). Perhaps you used the root word vulgar - because he brought into his argument the mind of a dog - which is also presumably a product of evolution - in a similar way that each and every human mind is said to be - (not to single out Tex or me or anyone else's mind). I don't really know what EMANUEL GOLDSTEIN II had in mind. However I do choose to call him basically what he chose to call himself - (rather than trying to change his name around in ways that might effect him in a negative way). I guess it may be construed that I am now trying to do the same thing to Rameus - and if that is my intent - then I apologize and hang my head in shame. I hope though that my comments may serve instead to help us all (me included) to try to make this a place that discusses the relative worth of a way of viewing things (and even ourselves) - rather than to hamper that process (IMHO) by resorting to name-calling. Dennis Posted by: SOIL Apr 28 2004, 11:40 AM QUOTE (The Pure One @ Apr 28 2004, 11:24 AM) Hi SOIL, SOIL? I really must start a thread where people explain their names, it would be entertaining. If there is such a thread already, somebody let me know please. ... Hi to you too, The Pure One ! I agree, it would be good to see why people choose the names which they do. Shortly after I registered here - I explained why I chose the name "SOIL" - it is in the opening post in what I think was the first thread I started: http://www.vanallens.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1182&st=0 I'd like to hear why you chose "The Pure One" - would you tell me/us ? Dennis Posted by: Rameus Apr 28 2004, 11:45 AM (by SOIL) QUOTE It seems to me that when some people feel somewhat threatened by something that someone else says - they start getting more insultatory toward them (OK, I admit it - I'm not even sure if "insultatory" is a legitimate word - but I think you probably get my drift here). In the last 24 hours or so I have read several posts which you have made. To tell you the truth I was kind of starting to actually listen to what you were saying - and even give many of your thoughts at least the dignity of exerting an effort to weigh them out - because I recognized your intelligence. However, after reading your most recent post - where you started getting more "insultatory" (and for what specific reason? - I really don't understand - yet) - now I am having a more difficult time actually taking your comments seriously. The fact that you are not able to comprehend the reasoning behind my madness is implicitly complimentary to your own emotional health. I do not pretend to be polite or mentally healthy, merely opinionated. If you had read enough of my previous posts you would see that I degenerate into vulgarity and gibbering insanity on a fairly regular basis. Over the years I have developed my own doctrine in regards to written and verbal communication. The Rameus Doctrine: Articulating an intelligent point is easy. Articulating an intelligent point using vulgarity, humor, and borderline insanity; that is hard. The reasoning for employing my degenerate tactics is threefold: 1. I enjoy a challenge. 2. I enjoy cursing. Cursing is an underappreciated art form, and when used effectively can be a fun and colorful way of communicating. 3. If despite handicapping myself with vulgarity and insanity I can still out speak an opponent, it reflects as poorly on them as it does on me. Since reflections mean about as much to me as being stabbed in the eye with a Nepalese Khukri knife, I consider this a worthwhile endeavor. (by SOIL) QUOTE Don't get me completely wrong though - I do still see the mark of intelligence coming through some of your arguments - however your style (with this last post anyway) has just moved itself as an obstacle in the path of any desire that was awakening in me to actually listen to you. Then I probably did you a favor. Paying attention to any of my wild ravings only increases the probability of your being infected with my madness. (by SOIL) QUOTE OK - now it's your turn to be honest with me. Alright if you really want. Once in my younger days, I had too much vodka and decided it would be a good idea to walk down my urban street in broad daylight while openly carrying a scimitar and asking passersby which way it was to Persepolis... Rameus Posted by: SOIL Apr 28 2004, 11:48 AM Hey Dhampir, Btw, and I should have said this earlier - I am also happy to see you still posting! I need to apologize to you as well. I think there were several times (in threads that are anciently old now) when I said I would get back to some response to good comments you made - and I still have not done so! I don't really remember a good excuse for such negligence. Maybe your arguments were too compelling for me to deal with appropriately at the time - I really just don't know. However I do think an apology is in order. Let's see if we can be friends again / or at least for now anyway! Feel free to keep those challenges coming at me! Dennis Posted by: SOIL Apr 28 2004, 12:01 PM QUOTE (Rameus @ Apr 28 2004, 11:45 AM) ... 3. If despite handicapping myself with vulgarity and insanity I can still out speak an opponent, it reflects as poorly on them as it does on me. Since reflections mean about as much to me as being stabbed in the eye with a Nepalese Khukri knife, I consider this a worthwhile endeavor. ... Rameus, if I had read this point prior to about a month ago - I wouldn't really have a clue about what "a Nepalese Khukri knife" actually is - and now - hey, I own one! I recently enjoyed a trip to Nepal (if you can call getting bad asthma from the smog in Kathmandu an enjoyable experience). At any rate, while there I was given a small Khukri knife (actually this particular model is just designed to be used as a letter opener type of deal I think). However I was shown some "real" ones (by a local family who served us dinner in their home) and how sharp and even practical they can be. This has absolutely nothing to do with this thread, I reckon - I guess I just wanted to say --- I can identify! ... at least I think I can identify - btw, just how much does it mean to you to be stabbed by one of those knives? -- (and in the eye no less)! Dennis Posted by: Rameus Apr 28 2004, 02:36 PM (by SOIL) QUOTE Rameus, if I had read this point prior to about a month ago - I wouldn't really have a clue about what "a Nepalese Khukri knife" actually is - and now - hey, I own one! They are fun aren't they? That's why I own 21 of them. Needless to say there are a lot of curved blades hanging on the walls of my home. Here's one of my other doctrines: Have pacifism in your heart and at least 3 weapons in every room. Not just pretty words, but rather a complex philosophical system by which I live my life. (by SOIL) QUOTE I recently enjoyed a trip to Nepal (if you can call getting bad asthma from the smog in Kathmandu an enjoyable experience) Look, anyone who hasn't had at least one asthma attack on Katmandu hasn't taken the time out to just live. (by SOIL) QUOTE ... at least I think I can identify - btw, just how much does it mean to you to be stabbed by one of those knives? -- (and in the eye no less)! I'm not really sure. Most of the drunken insanity from my younger days involved larger weapons. There were some instances where knives were involved, but not curved ones. I suspect it's because they were "too tricky" for me. QUOTE Bartender: "I'm sorry sir I can't serve you anymore tequila, you've had far too much already." Younger Rameus: *Calmly takes knife out of coat pocket, then sticks it into the bar a few inches from the bartender's fingers* "I want to see uncle Pepe." Bartender: *Gets customer one last shot of tequila...* Rameus Posted by: Doug2 Apr 28 2004, 02:37 PM I really must start a thread where people explain their names, it would be entertaining. If there is such a thread already, somebody let me know please. Usually goes here: http://www.vanallens.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1995&st=0 Posted by: The Pure One Apr 28 2004, 03:30 PM QUOTE (Doug2 @ Apr 28 2004, 02:37 PM) I really must start a thread where people explain their names, it would be entertaining. If there is such a thread already, somebody let me know please. Usually goes here: http://www.vanallens.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1995&st=0 Ah, learned a bit there. Doesn't seem too active. But since SOIL asked, I'll mention it here. The Pure One leapt to mind, because never in my life have I held a religious belief. Ever. I have never been to any church in search of spiritual enlightenment, only for weddings and such. No religion-inspired guilt has ever flowed through these veins, not a single religious shackle to be broken and tossed from my mind. And trust me, I am extremely thankful for this. I am as I was born, human clay untainted by religion. Do your worst. Go ahead. Convert me. Posted by: JasonLong Apr 28 2004, 04:57 PM QUOTE The Pure One Posted on Apr 28 2004, 07:30 PM QUOTE Ah, learned a bit there. Doesn't seem too active. But since SOIL asked, I'll mention it here. The Pure One leapt to mind, because never in my life have I held a religious belief. Ever. I have never been to any church in search of spiritual enlightenment, only for weddings and such. No religion-inspired guilt has ever flowed through these veins, not a single religious shackle to be broken and tossed from my mind. And trust me, I am extremely thankful for this. That's funny when I think about it. I'm thankful that I was brought up in church. It gives a better appreciation of why people believe such silly things. I suppose it helps you realte with the logical-lost. Posted by: Casey Apr 28 2004, 05:58 PM QUOTE Well, I think this world would be better if we tried to respect everyone simply because they are human I would agree with this as an ideal. However we live in a practical world, do we not, so I've come to think of this site in general and this forum in particular as being rather like a neighbourhood bar. The bar is a respectable pub, but some of its customers are hard citizens. In real life, if you walk into a place like that in search of a quiet drink and a bit of a chat or maybe even an amicable argument, you will find yourself pleasantly accommodated. Then too, if you go in there in search of a fight, you'll also find yourself accommodated, only not so pleasantly, because in that case you will, to use a touch of British slang, "have put a hole in your manners". If one of the regular customers decides to mend said hole with a handful of your teeth, that is I suppose regrettable, but whose fault was it, anyway? Casey Posted by: TexasFreethinker Apr 29 2004, 10:02 AM QUOTE (EMANUEL GOLDSTEIN II @ Apr 28 2004, 09:55 AM) Freethinker, you are begging the question...that is, you are arguing in a circle. You claim you use "reason" to guide you to truth and reality, and yet that same "reasoning" process is just a biochemical process of the organic brain that is said to have evolved by mindless processess to deal with this particular environment in this particular time; and that is what you base your view of "truth and reality" on. In other words, you no more know that your reality reflects the true nature of reality than a dog does. Further, your thoughts are not free. The leading atheists of the past three centuries believed your path was derived, repectively, from economic factors, subconscious sexual repressions, and DNA (Marx, Freud, and Dawkins.) And I always like to throw in Nietzsche, who believed that what really determined your path was the will to power. So given your faith in the ability of mindless processess to determine our present level of existence, I do not see how you claim to be a "free" thinker, or actually thinking objectively at all, for that matter. You have a point, to a point. From a pure skepticism viewpoint NOTHING can ever be proven. An evil demon may have hypnotized me and caused me to believe that you and this website exist (Descartes). Or perhaps, as Bertrand Russell jokingly hypothesized, the entire universe began just five minutes ago. Everything that makes it appear older, including the bags under your eyes and my memories of events several years ago were actually created to give the illusion of greater time periods. There's no way to prove that this didn't occur. In that case, your statements about our organic brains or philosophers from the past also have no basis in reality. Those are fun hypotheses, but aren't satisfactory for day-to-day living in that they leave us completely unanchored - they make it impossible to use ANY mechanism as a basis for our knowledge and beliefs. That's why I base my understanding of the world around me on reason and senses. I would argue that that is not "begging the question" since these are self-evident elements and in important ways don't require additional evidence. I am thinking, therefore thinking exists. I sense things, therefore sense exists. If you have a better foundation for understanding the universe I'd like to hear it. As for the thoughts of "leading atheists", I'm sure you're aware that appeals to authority are another logical fallacy. Especially since the authorities you put forward are in disagreement with one another. Just because another atheist says something doesn't mean that it should be taken as the whole truth. (Or didn't you know that?) So, I'll continue to rely on my organic brain's ability to process inputs from my senses and to organize those inputs based on my reasoning abilities. At least until you show us a better way. Posted by: The Pure One Apr 29 2004, 10:20 AM QUOTE (JasonLong @ Apr 28 2004, 04:57 PM) That's funny when I think about it. I'm thankful that I was brought up in church. It gives a better appreciation of why people believe such silly things. I suppose it helps you realte with the logical-lost. Understand, but do you really need to eat a turd to appreciate the value of not eating turds? ;) I can imagine just fine, if I care to. Posted by: =Veritas= Apr 29 2004, 11:00 AM The reason I came to this site was not for the purpose of "witnessing". I still do my best to keep that purpose out of my posts, but I'm sure it sneaks in every now and then since it's a part of who I am. Honestly, I think when it comes down to it we're ALL witnessing (or attesting to) something. Each of us share our opinions, life views, intellect, experiences, etc. and all of it comes from our individuality. Our lives bear witness to our beliefs. Your convicions determine your behavior. Or, as Will Scolavino said, "The height of your accomplishments will equal the depth of your convictions." I don't mind discussing other issues that challenge my faith or belief, as long as it's done in a civil and respectable manner. Madame M, you said: QUOTE (Madame M) Always wondered why, if Christianity is the truth, Christians can't handle even mild faith challenges in real life. According to the Bible, there should be a very distiguishable difference between how the believer faces challenges and how the non-believer faces them. Unfortunately, this isn't always the case. QUOTE (Rameus) I enjoy cursing. Cursing is an underappreciated art form, and when used effectively can be a fun and colorful way of communicating. I once heard someone say, "Profanity, is the attempt of a feeble mind to express itself strongly." Although I do admit, it sometimes does make for pretty good comedy when used in the right place at the right time! It just sucks to be on the receiving end of it. =Veritas= Posted by: Dhampir Apr 29 2004, 11:05 AM QUOTE I once heard someone say, "Profanity, is the attempt of a feeble mind to express itself strongly." My dad once said something to that effect, and I used to believe it, but then I thought: Who decided that? I know my brain isn't feeble, and I know how to curse, so that must be some shiteater's way of trying to downplay a form of expression he doesn't approve of, a lot like 'sarcasm is the lowest form of wit'. Bullshit. Posted by: =Veritas= Apr 29 2004, 11:23 AM Hi Dhampir, QUOTE My dad once said something to that effect, and I used to believe it, but then I thought: Who decided that? I know my brain isn't feeble, and I know how to curse, so that must be some shiteater's way of trying to downplay a form of expression he doesn't approve of, a lot like 'sarcasm is the lowest form of wit'. Bullshit. Ah yes, we don't have feeble minds (most of us) and we all have the ability to curse. The point isn't that we are able to curse - it's that we use it in order to make a stronger expression. The argument is that truly intelligent people don't have to resort to profanity in order to make a good point. Knowing how to curse doesn't take any intelligence. Forming a sound argument by use of "regular" vocabulary does. This is the contention anyway. I don't really care either way, as long as it's not directed my way without legitimate reason. =Veritas= Posted by: Cerise Apr 29 2004, 11:29 AM QUOTE (=Veritas= @ Apr 29 2004, 11:23 AM) Hi Dhampir, QUOTE My dad once said something to that effect, and I used to believe it, but then I thought: Who decided that? I know my brain isn't feeble, and I know how to curse, so that must be some shiteater's way of trying to downplay a form of expression he doesn't approve of, a lot like 'sarcasm is the lowest form of wit'. Bullshit. Ah yes, we don't have feeble minds (most of us) and we all have the ability to curse. The point isn't that we are able to curse - it's that we use it in order to make a stronger expression. The argument is that truly intelligent people don't have to resort to profanity in order to make a good point. Knowing how to curse doesn't take any intelligence. Forming a sound argument by use of "regular" vocabulary does. This is the contention anyway. I don't really care either way, as long as it's not directed my way without legitimate reason. =Veritas= Who decides which words are "profane" anyway? If the emotion and intention behind the words is the same, does it really matter whether you say shit or shoot? Posted by: =Veritas= Apr 29 2004, 11:40 AM Hi Cerise, QUOTE Who decides which words are "profane" anyway? Ya know, I've always wondered that myself! I think there's a website on the origin of profane words. Anybody know what site I'm referring to? QUOTE If the emotion and intention behind the words is the same, does it really matter whether you say shit or shoot? I guess it only matters if you care how the person will respond. Proverbs 15:1 "A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger." I would add that it takes emotional maturity to be able to respond without giving into the frustration and anger you feel. A wise person is able to refrain from harsh words in order to continue a respectable and civil line of communication. =Veritas= Posted by: Dhampir Apr 29 2004, 11:41 AM QUOTE (=Veritas= @ Apr 29 2004, 03:23 PM) Hi Dhampir, QUOTE My dad once said something to that effect, and I used to believe it, but then I thought: Who decided that? I know my brain isn't feeble, and I know how to curse, so that must be some shiteater's way of trying to downplay a form of expression he doesn't approve of, a lot like 'sarcasm is the lowest form of wit'. Bullshit. Ah yes, we don't have feeble minds (most of us) and we all have the ability to curse. The point isn't that we are able to curse - it's that we use it in order to make a stronger expression. The argument is that truly intelligent people don't have to resort to profanity in order to make a good point. Knowing how to curse doesn't take any intelligence. Forming a sound argument by use of "regular" vocabulary does. This is the contention anyway. I don't really care either way, as long as it's not directed my way without legitimate reason. =Veritas= QUOTE The argument is that truly intelligent people don't have to resort to profanity in order to make a good point. Again, who decided that? I mean, first, what's truly intelligent? Second, how can it be said that intelligent statements must be made without profanity. You have to show me that it is more than just dislike of the words themselves that makes people say stuff like that. You have to show that profanity is somehow incapable of driving home the point the same way as other words. QUOTE it's that we use it in order to make a stronger expression. What's wrong with that? Does the validity of a point change with the use of a particular *type* of word? If it's all about how we use words to make our points, then "bullshit", at some point is equal to or better than "unfounded statement". If it's about how we use our words, then "that's a lie!" is weaker than "unfounded statement". Nope, it's not a matter of 'resorting' to anything, its a dislike of what you've been taught those words represent. Posted by: Rameus Apr 29 2004, 11:44 AM (by Veritas) QUOTE Ah yes, we don't have feeble minds (most of us) and we all have the ability to curse. The point isn't that we are able to curse - it's that we use it in order to make a stronger expression. The argument is that truly intelligent people don't have to resort to profanity in order to make a good point. Knowing how to curse doesn't take any intelligence. Forming a sound argument by use of "regular" vocabulary does. I don't think you understand my doctrine at all. You are implying that unintelligent people must "resort" to using vulgarity to make a point. I am arguing that it takes an intelligent person to articulate an intellectually compelling point by using vulgarity. Forming intelligent arguments is no challenge whatsoever. Forming intelligent arguments that are both compelling and offensive simultaneous is far more difficult. The Rameus Doctrine: Articulating an intelligent point is easy. Articulating an intelligent point using vulgarity, humor, and borderline insanity; that is hard. Understand what I'm saying now? Rameus Posted by: SteveFDL Apr 29 2004, 11:45 AM QUOTE (EMANUEL GOLDSTEIN II @ Apr 28 2004, 08:55 AM) Freethinker, you are begging the question...that is, you are arguing in a circle. You claim you use "reason" to guide you to truth and reality, and yet that same "reasoning" process is just a biochemical process of the organic brain that is said to have evolved by mindless processess to deal with this particular environment in this particular time; and that is what you base your view of "truth and reality" on. In other words, you no more know that your reality reflects the true nature of reality than a dog does. Further, your thoughts are not free. The leading atheists of the past three centuries believed your path was derived, repectively, from economic factors, subconscious sexual repressions, and DNA (Marx, Freud, and Dawkins.) And I always like to throw in Nietzsche, who believed that what really determined your path was the will to power. So given your faith in the ability of mindless processess to determine our present level of existence, I do not see how you claim to be a "free" thinker, or actually thinking objectively at all, for that matter. Yes, but at least he isn't claiming to have 100% absolute truth. And to believe in this truth comes with it flying chariots and talking donkeys. Posted by: SteveFDL Apr 29 2004, 11:49 AM QUOTE (Rameus @ Apr 28 2004, 12:01 PM) Remember Emmanuel Apestein, the red button gives you the banana and the blue button sends electrical current into you genitals. Don't get those mixed up. Posted by: =Veritas= Apr 29 2004, 12:26 PM QUOTE (Rameus) Understand what I'm saying now? Yes Rameus, thank you. I understood your 'Doctrine' incorrectly. Thank you! QUOTE (Dhampir) Again, who decided that? I mean, first, what's truly intelligent? Second, how can it be said that intelligent statements must be made without profanity. You have to show me that it is more than just dislike of the words themselves that makes people say stuff like that. You have to show that profanity is somehow incapable of driving home the point the same way as other words. What is truly intelligent? Being mentally acute (as dictionary.com says). Appealing to the intellect. I would argue that profanity has more to do with emotions than it does with intellect. (Except in the way that Rameus illustrates). QUOTE (Dhampir) What's wrong with that? Does the validity of a point change with the use of a particular *type* of word? If it's all about how we use words to make our points, then "bullshit", at some point is equal to or better than "unfounded statement". If it's about how we use our words, then "that's a lie!" is weaker than "unfounded statement". Nope, it's not a matter of 'resorting' to anything, its a dislike of what you've been taught those words represent. Does the validity of a point change with the use of a particular type of word? Yes, I think so. Let me give a recent example of what I mean. The other day I witnessed a man walk into a store to pay off the balance on his account. He admitted that he was late with his payment, but was outraged when he learned of the added late fees. He then insisted that he will no longer do business with this company. When the store representative asked him why (in a very kind and sincere manner), he simply began spewing out obscenities and degrading, vulgar comments to the representative (a female), telling her to "suck his..." and "fuck off" etc. and stormed out of the store without paying a dime. To me (and the others watching), this made his point invalid. If he had articulated reasonable arguments to back up his assertion, he might have made some headway. Conversely, he acted on emotion, and reacted in such a derogatory way that caused all his credibility to go down the tube. Profanity by definition, is disrespectful. It has no "good" purpose behind it. I believe it feeds off of (and into) emotions rather than intellect. What is intelligent in saying, "Fuck you!"? Or, "My food tastes like shit."? =Veritas= Posted by: Lokmer Apr 29 2004, 12:38 PM Ah, but you forget the work of the satirists, the true geniuses of the profane. Using profanity and/or innuendo well is a highly developed art form, and is a lot harder than it looks. There's as much distance between talking shit every fucking word in the goddamn sentence and the highly refined use of artistic profanity as there is between "Dick and Jane" and Shakespeare. BTW - "bad language" comes from the Norman Conquest of England in 1066. The French from Normandy became the nobility, so the French terms for things became proper and the English terms became "vulgar" (which literally means "of the common people"). Henceforth, respectable people did not fuck like they used to, although they didn indulge in coitus. No respectable person would be caught dead pissing, even though a genteel maid might be overtaken by the need to urinate on occasion. And heaven forbid someone would have the temerity to posess nasty body parts like cocks, cunts, tits, or arses - the posterior, genitalia, and breasts were far preferable to what the vulgar people did. -Lokmer Posted by: SteveFDL Apr 29 2004, 12:39 PM QUOTE (=Veritas= @ Apr 29 2004, 02:26 PM) What is intelligent in saying, "Fuck you!"? Or, "My food tastes like shit."? It crossed my mind when reading this: while most of us don't say "Fuck you" often to those we disagree with, we do often get pretty darn PO'd at their views. Rameus says what most people think, and I believe it scares the living crap out of people. They think, whoa, I feel vulnerable, I feel exposed, I feel that way, but I have this internal conflict going on. Because of this fear, it can be easy to attack people who express themselves in a way consistant with the inner thought life. When I was a Christian, my biggest struggle was against my inner thought life: lustful and hateful thoughts, et al. The difference being inner thoughts and outer actions occurs at the mouth. The madness of Rameus does not come simply from an unhinderd path from brain to mouth. Do I condone it? Well, I wouldn't want to work with a plant of Rameus clones for a couple of weeks, but once I got to know them it probably would be a hell of a time. Our intitial impressions of people usually are faulty. It takes a while to udnerstand people. I'm glad Rameus is here. To often forums turn into debate clubs. We need alot more "that's bullshit" when bullshit is spread. It reduces the stink level. Posted by: Madame M Apr 29 2004, 12:48 PM QUOTE What is intelligent in saying, "Fuck you!"? Or, "My food tastes like shit."? Well, if you are eating something I cooked, that last line would be very unwise indeed!! Unless one likes wearing food on their head. I actually had something intelligent to say, I think, so I'll edit it in. While Christians mostly disdain cussing. They have their own way of saying "fuck you!" You see it all the time on this forum. They get mad and in one way or another condemn their opponent to hell. Their official "fuck you". Posted by: Dhampir Apr 29 2004, 12:49 PM QUOTE Profanity by definition, is disrespectful. It has no "good" purpose behind it. I believe it feeds off of (and into) emotions rather than intellect. My apologies, I should have used a different word to describe it. Since you are in agreement with Rameus' way of thinking on the subject, I think you rendered the rest of your statement pointless. QUOTE To me (and the others watching), this made his point invalid. Sure it did, and here I think you just lost yourself. This is a situational anecdote, wherein the man blew up in response to anger. This fails to convey your point for 2 reasons: the man was clearly in the wrong to begin with, and he reacted defensively, and, as you said, unintelligently. Second, I personally am capable of flaying a man's feelings without using any cuss words, are you telling me that she couldn't possibly have been equally offended by an inability to get a word in edgewise, and heated references, though with 'polite' words, to her incompetence? QUOTE What is intelligent in saying, "Fuck you!"? Or, "My food tastes like shit."? Here, you are equating intelligence with verbiage. One must be of the opinion that intelligent people wouldn't sprinkle choice language on any given conversation, and that certain words are inherently unintelligent. That is the way of thinking among the pseudo-intellects of past decades, and I am proof that it is outdated. What is intelligent in saying, "Fuck you!"? Or, "My food tastes like shit."? What's really intelligent about interjection, or commenting on ones food? Words don't make the man, man. They do guage him, but you need to listen to a great deal to conclude that his language is completely telling. Posted by: chefranden Apr 29 2004, 12:52 PM QUOTE (=Veritas= @ Apr 29 2004, 02:26 PM) What is intelligent in saying, "Fuck you!"? Or, "My food tastes like shit."? As a chef, I say that saying "My food tastes like shit" is a sign of intelligence, especially when eating at McDonald's, though a person that simply refuses to eat at McDonald's is even more intelligent. Posted by: Dhampir Apr 29 2004, 12:54 PM I almost forgot: In a way similar to Rameus, I don't always, or even usually use swears emotionally. You know why I don't cuss around religious people? That I respect? Because I am considerate of their feelings on cursing, not 'cause I care what they think of my language (though a lot of those people knew me back when). Prove to me that cusses can't be intermingled with intellectual conversation, and I'll turn into a puff of smoke and disappear. Posted by: =Veritas= Apr 29 2004, 12:56 PM Thanks for your imput Lokmer - I always enjoy reading what you have to say about various issues/topics. Always something new to learn. Chef, you crack me up! And what you said is true...Mickey D's isn't exactly something to write home about. Although, it is apparently a way for a couple of people to make a lot of money from eating there. Asinine Lawsuits. =Veritas= Posted by: =Veritas= Apr 29 2004, 01:02 PM Hi Dhampir, QUOTE My apologies, I should have used a different word to describe it. Noted. QUOTE Since you are in agreement with Rameus' way of thinking on the subject, I think you rendered the rest of your statement pointless. How did I render it pointless? My contention is that profanity is more affiliated with emotions than with intellect. The difference with Rameus, is that he uses the profanity in an intellectual way - no emotions attached...or so it seems. QUOTE Sure it did, and here I think you just lost yourself. This is a situational anecdote, wherein the man blew up in response to anger. This fails to convey your point for 2 reasons: the man was clearly in the wrong to begin with, and he reacted defensively, and, as you said, unintelligently. Second, I personally am capable of flaying a man's feelings without using any cuss words, are you telling me that she couldn't possibly have been equally offended by an inability to get a word in edgewise, and heated references, though with 'polite' words, to her incompetence? My point is (again) that he began cursing out of emotion, which took no intelligence, and thus negated his point. She (the rep) was offended to the point of saying that she wasn't going to help him if he was going to speak to her in that manner. That's when he decided to turn around and give her the finger, while continuing his obscenities. I'm not sure that I'm following your point here (on reason #2). =Veritas= Posted by: =Veritas= Apr 29 2004, 01:05 PM Hi Madame... QUOTE (Madame M) Well, if you are eating something I cooked, that last line would be very unwise indeed!! Unless one likes wearing food on their head. QUOTE (Madame M) I actually had someth |