Personal Experience

M*W: There are many prophets. I am not in competition with Muhammad. That was then, this is now.
Click to expand...
Well you can't both be prophets then. It suffices to say that Muhammed was illiterate, and it seems you are making fun of Muhammed by making fun of my "illiteracy". This shows you own lack of knowledge. Quite amusing to find that an illiterate person can read what you write. Isn't it?.

M*W: I'm not surprised. You are young, unlearned, blind to truth, and can't spell. Yet, you profess Christianity in all your illiteracy! I suggest that you grow up, learn the truth (which is NOT Christianity), learn to write like an educated adult, don't confuse truth with fiction, and read everything you can about Christianity so you will come to the conclusion that Christianity is false. You are young enough that you will see the truth, yet old enough that you will know what the truth is and what isn't.
Click to expand...
You've never read any of the early church father's writings nor even some of the gospels that you hail as being better than the real ones such as forgeries in the gospel of Thomas, the gospel of Truth or the gospel of Mary Magdalene. You do not understand that the Truth is in plain grasp and intelligence is not needed, for it is given to those who ask. Instead, you believe in your own truth, your own ideas.
 
Originally posted by okinrus
Well you can't both be prophets then. It suffices to say that Muhammed was illiterate, and it seems you are making fun of Muhammed by making fun of my "illiteracy". This shows you own lack of knowledge. Quite amusing to find that an illiterate person can read what you write. Isn't it?.
----------
M*W: So, what's wrong with that, my stupid young man? Who are you to say who is a prophet and who is not? I do not make "fun" of Muhammad. You, on the other hand, are a buffoon by your own hand. I don't make fun of you. You do that quite well on your own! Don't even try to compare yourself with me! I'm most certainly NOT illiterate. You haven't lived long enough to attain literacy. After all, YOU are a Christian. I'm long PAST that illusion. So is the other 75% of creation.
----------
You've never read any of the early church father's writings nor even some of the gospels that you hail as being better than the real ones such as forgeries in the gospel of Thomas, the gospel of Truth or the gospel of Mary Magdalene. You do not understand that the Truth is in plain grasp and intelligence is not needed, for it is given to those who ask. Instead, you believe in your own truth, your own ideas.
----------
M*W: You don't know what I've read and what I haven't. The Gospels do not contain truth. However, I'm inclined to believe MM's Gospel before I believe any other. The Jesus I know is not the Jesus you proclaim.
Click to expand...
 
M*W: So, what's wrong with that, my stupid young man? Who are you to say who is a prophet and who is not? I do not make "fun" of Muhammad. You, on the other hand, are a buffoon by your own hand. I don't make fun of you. You do that quite well on your own! Don't even try to compare yourself with me! I'm most certainly NOT illiterate. You haven't lived long enough to attain literacy. After all, YOU are a Christian. I'm long PAST that illusion. So is the other 75% of creation.
Click to expand...
M*W, I'm suprised that you think that you can insult me. Why would I wish to compare myself to you? You speak of communication skills, but let's see what your communicating: trash and insults. So do feel free to address the points I raised. If you can't defend what you say, don't say it at all. "A Fluent tongue and an elegant style afford pleasure and such praise as vainglory delights in, to wretched men who have been corrupted in mind; the lover of truth does not give heed to ornamented speeches, but examines the real matter of the speech, what it is, and what kind it is... and since, besides, you call me a Christian, as if this were a damning name to bear, I, for my part, avow that I am a Christian,1 and bear this name beloved of God, hoping to be serviceable2 to God. For it is not the case, as you suppose, that the name of God is hard to bear; but possibly you entertain this opinion of God, because you are yourself yet unserviceable to Him."(Theophilus of Antioch)

M*W: You don't know what I've read and what I haven't. The Gospels do not contain truth. However, I'm inclined to believe MM's Gospel before I believe any other. The Jesus I know is not the Jesus you proclaim.
Click to expand...
Have you even read Mary Magdalene's gospel? I think I've posted it to you before.
 
This have nothing to do with this thread, but Okinrus and Everneo have their heads screwed correctly to their shoulders. Most of the things that I happen to disagree with them about could be attributed to deficiencies in the English language as a less than perfect tool of communication. I bet you we would totally agree if we used musical notes to communicate.
 
"Education is everything that you know after you forget everything you learned in school" Einstein.
 
How about this?

Have you considered a more *logical* explanation for your incident?

How about this:

You got pulled under by the current and you got pulled around alot, regardless of your struggle... you tired yourself out or whatever happened and you merely thought you were "walking" back to shore, when in fact, you merely had floated to the top, where the current goes toward the shore. The bottom goes out... it is a cycle.

And your thinking about a sermon and attributing ocean physics to god is pure superstition, especially when better explanations abound.

The nurses there doesn't matter. Anyone on the beach could have gotten you to a hospital with 911 or whatever.

The insurance thing: my grandfather bought burial plots for him and his wife 6 months before she died. So what. It is irrelevant. There is nothing special there.

But, of course, god will always win out over logic. Something non-falsifiable and amorphous will always win, because you can make it mean anything you want. I am tired of superstitious bullshit.

I am out of here. If you have a response, PM me. I will not be back here.
 
Communications skills

Originally posted by Flores
This have nothing to do with this thread, but Okinrus and Everneo have their heads screwed correctly to their shoulders. Most of the things that I happen to disagree with them about could be attributed to deficiencies in the English language as a less than perfect tool of communication. I bet you we would totally agree if we used musical notes to communicate.
Click to expand...

----------
M*W: Yes, you're right, Flores. It's not the "content" of what okinrus states, it's the presentation in which he states it. I would be more inclined to read his posts with objectivity if he would just take the time to present his beliefs logically, correctly, typo-less, etc. I know that every once in a while a typo is expected. He assured me previously that he indeed could spell correctly, yet he continues to spell the same words incorrectly (i.e. "stuft" for stuff). I know this is minor, but it is worth mentioning. The truth he tries to prove in representing his faith fails because of the poor spelling, writing, and laziness about typos, etc. It has not been a single incident but happens regularly. If he is not as careful about presenting his religion, that tells me he's not sincere about it either. It leaves a big question mark in my mind whether he even knows what he's talking about! If I believe in something so devoutly, I would give it my best appearance, because I am a representative of what I believe. Impatience is a sign of immaturity. Whatever one believes, it should be presented to the world in every possible aspect of truth, including spelling, grammar and content. The content of one's message reflects on the care one gives to his presentation. Fortunately, for okinrus, this is not an English grammar class. However, the presentation of one's convictions, whether it be Paul, the writers of the Gospels, the scribes, or even okinrus on sciforums, leads me to question the accuracy, content, and truth of their beliefs. The truth and authenticity of their religion was compromised when it was translated from language to language to language. okinrus has given us a very good example of how the truths of Biblical scripture were lost during the multitudes of translations into many languages.
 
M*W I already pointed out to you where you misquoted famous people. If I spell a few words wrong by accident, then what's that to you. Fact is, you can't even bother to make sure who your quoting is credible nor do you even present any real evidence. At least I represent what I believe and don't slander other people.
 
The content of one's message reflects on the care one gives to his presentation. Fortunately, for okinrus, this is not an English grammar class. However, the presentation of one's convictions, whether it be Paul, the writers of the Gospels, the scribes, or even okinrus on sciforums, leads me to question the accuracy, content, and truth of their beliefs. The truth and authenticity of their religion was compromised when it was translated from language to language to language. okinrus has given us a very good example of how the truths of Biblical scripture were lost during the multitudes of translations into many languages.
Click to expand...
M*W, I'm first and foremost a computer scientist. While we occasionally have to write documentation up, spelling checking is done by machine. I think that's in the spirit of what I said before. I can write correctly spelled documents when they have been checked by machine. I don't intend to check everything I write on sciforums because most of the people can understand what I say even with a few spelling errors. Besides, communication-wise my speech is far worse than my spelling, so if I was going to fix anything, I'd try to fix my speech. The writing, on the other hand, I'm more worried about style and grammer because these two cannot be easily check by machine. Spelling, is and will be, a lost art when browsers adept to it.
 
Originally posted by okinrus
M*W I already pointed out to you where you misquoted famous people. If I spell a few words wrong by accident, then what's that to you. Fact is, you can't even bother to make sure who your quoting is credible nor do you even present any real evidence. At least I represent what I believe and don't slander other people.
----------
M*W: I cut-and-pasted these quotes from a web site called "Famous Atheists," so I didn't "misquote" anyone!

"If I spell a few words wrong by accident, then what's that to you."

"...wrong by accident..." is redundant.

"If I spell a few words wrong..." "incorrectly" would be the better choice of words. "wrong" and "accident" besides being redundant are double negatives. You should have left "accident" out, because your errors are repetitive and are no accident. That's how you spell!

You asked a question, ..."then what's that you you." A question mark should conclude this question.

What's "wrong" with your spelling errors is they're stupid mistakes. I assume you are at least a high school graduate. I would venture to say that you've probably had some college. I, for one, would expect to see more literacy from you. Even though I don't know you, and in the greater scheme of things in the universe, you and I are about as different as night and day. If you are just an average American young man, I would hope that you don't represent the intellect of your generation. Instead of being so defensive about your English shortcomings, take this as good advice, perfect it, and use it in the other areas of your life where you may find your readers are more unforgiving than here on sciforums.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by okinrus
I don't intend to check everything I write on sciforums because most of the people can understand what I say even with a few spelling errors. .
Click to expand...

I agree, I mean can you understand this?

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae.

The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

amzanig huh?

:)

Dave
 
M*W: I cut-and-pasted these quotes from a web site called "Famous Atheists," so I didn't "misquote" anyone!
Click to expand...
Yes you did. Since you never gave the source of your quotation until asked, you misquoted them. I knew before that you had grabbed them from a website but your not being truthful.


"If I spell a few words wrong..." "incorrectly" would be the better choice of words. "wrong" and "accident" besides being redundant are double negatives. You should have left "accident" out, because your errors are repetitive and are no accident. That's how you spell!
Click to expand...
M*W, I would never write "what's that to you" in a formal writing. Besides, the last time I wrote that, I believe I used a question mark. The words accident and wrong are not double negatives. Why would I purposely spell words wrong?
 
Originally posted by okinrus
M*W, I'm first and foremost a computer scientist. While we occasionally have to write documentation up, spelling checking is done by machine. I think that's in the spirit of what I said before. I can write correctly spelled documents when they have been checked by machine. I don't intend to check everything I write on sciforums because most of the people can understand what I say even with a few spelling errors. Besides, communication-wise my speech is far worse than my spelling, so if I was going to fix anything, I'd try to fix my speech. The writing, on the other hand, I'm more worried about style and grammer because these two cannot be easily check by machine. Spelling, is and will be, a lost art when browsers adept to it.
Click to expand...
---------
M*W: Thank you for your further clarification. I'm impressed that you are a computer scientist--something I am far from being.

Spellcheck is a fine tool. I use it all the time. Mostly, I use Thesaurus in my work. My advice to you is not to rely heavily on Spellcheck. Learn to spell correctly yourself. It will do you good in the future. Please don't discount the importance of spelling accurately on sciforums. You credibility will be compromised. At least utilize the time you spend on sciforums to learn correct spelling and grammar. Not everyone is perfect. I know I'm not. In fact, all those computer abbreviations (i.e. IMO, etc.), I have no idea what they mean, yet everyone uses them on sciforums! I feel like don't fully understand what they mean when they "speak" that "language!" I would appreciate it if you could teach me what those abbreviations mean! (I'm humbling myself here by asking you to teach me the language you speak!).
 
I agree, I mean can you understand this?

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae.

The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.
Click to expand...
Yes, of course. Spelling errors are more common today because of all the OCR done on hard copies.
 
Not everyone is perfect. I know I'm not. In fact, all those computer abbreviations (i.e. IMO, etc.), I have no idea what they mean, yet everyone uses them on sciforums! I feel like don't fully understand what they mean when they "speak" that "language!" I would appreciate it if you could teach me what those abbreviations mean!
Click to expand...
These abbreviations are for the most part defined in Erick Raymond's Hacker's dictionary. IMO means "In my opinion", IMHO means "In my humble opinion", OP means "original poster", LOL means "laughing out loud" etc.
 
Hiya Okinrus,

Originally posted by okinrus
Yes, of course. Spelling errors are more common today because of all the OCR done on hard copies.
Click to expand...

Yes, everyone I've met can understand it. So when someone picks up on a trivial subject such as spelling, then they are only looking for an argument or to get some sort of upper hand.

Dave
 
Originally posted by davewhite04
Hiya Okinrus,

Yes, everyone I've met can understand it. So when someone picks up on a trivial subject such as spelling, then they are only looking for an argument or to get some sort of upper hand.

Dave
Click to expand...

----------
M*W: You are wrong! I criticized okinrus for his lackadaisical attitude toward English communication. okinrus and I may never see eye-to-eye on religion OR computer science. I gave him my advice, and I believe he understands about good grammar and spelling. This advice was to benefit okinrus' presentation regardless of the content, and not mine! Just because the human brain can decipher words in their entirety without regard to letter sequence certainly adds nothing to the truth of what is written. You seem to forget that my advice to okinrus would also help him present his position about Christianity in a more convincing way. okinrus and I have resolved our dispute, amicably, I might add. Why don't you butt out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top