Well, I was correct. There was an implicit not stated argument. I had to make I think three attempts to get you to actually articulate the arguement. You didn't deal with your implicit argument here. That's what I said. I didn't say 'you are running away.' It did allow you to not really respond. You implied a conclusion, but did not actually make the argument. You want views on an an arguement, my suggestion would be to actually make the argument instead of implying it.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jul 09, 2023 8:20 am This was what got to me, i.e. accusing me of running away from an argument.
I haven't said otherwise.Repeat:
I started this thread re the following;
In the OP, I asked for "views" [on topic].
I expect different people will have different views to the above.
That's not what I thought. It's a one person study and it's not clear that they drew any totalizing conclusions about theists or the key figures in religions. So, it doesn't really matter to me. I know that some people have religious type experiences during seizures.Perhaps, someone has read the above is a false research, so offer his evidence.
Sure.Someone may have something additional to add.
In a more active forum, there will be a range of views from various posters.
But as it turned out you had an implicit argument. The title plus what you posted implies this.I am not running away from any arguments by opening new threads but for various other legit reasons from my perspective.
Whatever the argument I will am willing to discuss with anyone [with exceptions] to the bottom of it in the respective thread.
You didn't tell us why it was unique. You didn't present the implicit argument untill pressed several times by me. Yes, we can have differing ideas about what can be handled in one thread and what works better by starting a new thread. You might have noticed that you are on the extreme end of the Bell Curve and that many of your threads have very close to the same title, include OP's with quotes from other posts and threads of yours and are directly taking up previous arguments, often with points that fit well in the old discussion. Often directly responding to the last post in another thread. Just because you are on the extreme end of a bell curve of behavior - creating lots of threads on the same topics - doesn not mean you are wrong. I find it irritating for the reasons stated.I believe the above paper is unique; if I dump it into another bigger thread with more posts, it is likely to be lost like a needle in the haystack and difficult to find.
You just bossed me around. Further that's your interpretation of what I did. And 'condescending remarks'??!! What a laugh. You contantly tell people they are being naive, primitive, barbaric, ignorant and more. You have some other rhetorical devices that are condescending.Whereas if I open a new thread it will be easy for me to trace it via the titles of the OP which I keep a listing for easy reference.
Don't boss around and make condescending remarks.
I agree.The facts is, threads here are often polluted with loads of off-topic posts.
I think you mean 'trash' though it does make a nice play on words, perhaps it was intentional to use 'trash'.I suggest to anyone, if my threads are confusing or messed up, they should open a new thread to trash it out.
If I think a post of yours is confusing, it makes much more sense to me to point this out in that thread. Generally that's where people ask for clarification or point out what seem like contradictions. To me that makes much more sense.
I realize or better put believe this is a taste issue.
What I noticed what I thought was a thread that due its title couple with the contents of the OP had an implicit argument. The argument was not made, in fact, so far I think only a gesture at it has been made. My view, since you asked for views, was that there was an implicit argument. I also think it is a very weak one - once you finally made this argument more explicit, I made my counterargument more explicit.
Honestly I can't see what the problem is.
If you want views on an argument, then make an explict argument. If you want feedback on an article, then avoid a title that implies the conclusions you are drawing, on very weak grounds, from that article without actually stating them.
I don't know your motive for not actually writing your argument out. I do know, as I said, that it allowed you not do certain things.