IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Learn some bloody history, woman!
The Pilgrims came after 1600 years of Christian history.

As for the rest, Andrew (unlike you) knows basic history. Christianity was a religion that appealed strongly to slaves, and fact that Christian Europe did did not believe in bathing is a well-reported part of European history. If you continue to mistake simple fact for bashing, no wonder you don't know much history! (And you're unlikely to improve!)

The next time that Andrew launches into one of his rants, you'd be well-advised to ask what parts of it are speculation, and what parts are confirmed fact. It may save you some embarrassment.

Regards,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
New Re: Learn some bloody history, woman!
The Pilgrims came after 1600 years of Christian history.


I've already explained numerous times I was seeing the beginning of "Christianity" i.e. the departure from the Church of England, as the U.S. version, not the Old Testament.

I also explained why I viewed his post as "bashing" and why some parts of it still come across that way. It certainly can't be viewed as a positive post about Christianity. I was just pointing out I was a little tired of hearing all the negativity about religion.

I know a lot of history, just never focused on religious history or political really. I focused on military history. Not every human being, even if they learned it ALL in school is expected to remember every fact in history, and that includes me.

I observed something, I made a comment, we've resolved it, time to move along, nothing to see here. :)

Nightowl >8#




Note to self: Find new signature soon.
New Still no excuse
The fact that Andrew talked about thousand year period and Roman baths made it utterly clear that he was talking about a time period that is longer than US history, and he was talking about something that was nowhere near the New World. (Assuming, that is, that you have a rough idea where Rome is.)

If you knew any dates at all on the relevant events, this would have been abundantly clear to you.

But even if you were completely clueless as to what events Andrew was talking about, you could have asked! Not knowing something is unavoidable - as you say we are all in that position from time to time. But jumping down someone's throat because they stated facts you were unaware of is avoidable, and should be avoided.

How you avoid it is simple - if what that person says makes no sense to you, give them the benefit of the doubt and ask for clarification. When people make stuff up, you can figure that out and call them on it later. When people are referring to stuff which you just didn't happen to know, you can find out more without causing this kind of problem for yourself.

So remember this for for next time: there was no excuse for your behaviour. When you don't know, ask before assuming the worst. Particularly if the person who is making comments (Andrew) happens to be someone who is known to know a lot of odd things.

Regards,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
New I didn't jump down anyone's throat.
I made a semi-sarcastic comment, with a wink included, meaning I wasn't upset or anything.

If you choose to take it differently, that's your problem.

Edit: And I've already clarified and handled the mix-up with Andrew in the Religion Forum. I don't ask as much on here as I used to, because when I do it now, people tend to ridicule me for asking.

Nightowl >8#



Note to self: Find new signature soon.
Expand Edited by Nightowl Aug. 1, 2004, 11:27:26 PM EDT
     "Twas ever thus" - (deSitter) - (40)
         Is not to worry - (Andrew Grygus) - (39)
             In answer to your question - (hnick) - (38)
                 Alas, you are not wrong - (Andrew Grygus) - (37)
                     LA Times: "Do the Math" - (deSitter)
                     Bashing religion again - (Nightowl) - (12)
                         Re: Bashing religion again - (deSitter)
                         was not a bash at Christians - (hnick) - (7)
                             I did wink, by the way in case no one noticed. - (Nightowl) - (6)
                                 Learn some bloody history, woman! - (ben_tilly) - (3)
                                     Re: Learn some bloody history, woman! - (Nightowl) - (2)
                                         Still no excuse - (ben_tilly) - (1)
                                             I didn't jump down anyone's throat. - (Nightowl)
                                 One note - (jake123) - (1)
                                     Yes, I'm getting that now - (Nightowl)
                         So quoting the evidence of history is 'bashing'? (new thread) - (Andrew Grygus)
                         Surely you jest, Owlet - (Ashton) - (1)
                             Re: Surely you jest, Owlet - (Nightowl)
                     Is that true? Is it a recent phenomena? - (imric) - (3)
                         It might be a recent phenomen*ON* :-D -NT - (pwhysall) - (2)
                             OK - what's the plural of opus?__of 'Grand Prix'?---er :-\ufffd -NT - (Ashton)
                             *smile* - (imric)
                     It explains swaggert et al - (boxley) - (18)
                         Well, I've learned - (Nightowl) - (17)
                             This phrase makes you a maverick - (Ashton) - (1)
                                 Yay, someone gets it! - (Nightowl)
                             What you've learned - (rcareaga) - (14)
                                 Well, yes, that is grumpy - (Andrew Grygus) - (13)
                                     I can prove The Truth - (Ashton)
                                     unproven? - (rcareaga) - (11)
                                         Absence of evidence means nothing. - (pwhysall) - (10)
                                             Evidence..?___of the by-definition ineffable? Ummm -NT - (Ashton)
                                             Re: Absence of evidence means nothing. - (deSitter) - (1)
                                                 You shouldn't try to read my mind. - (pwhysall)
                                             Yes it does. - (CRConrad) - (6)
                                                 obviously you havnt stopped for a drink at the blue moon - (boxley) - (1)
                                                     Best post in this thread! Thanx, box! -NT - (jb4)
                                                 Why is that in every debate about religion and atheism - (Arkadiy) - (3)
                                                     Strict atheism is also a religion. -NT - (deSitter) - (1)
                                                         For small values of religion. :) -NT - (a6l6e6x)
                                                     To be quite honest - (orion)

Black candle lit.
65 ms