(November 16, 2012 at 12:51 pm)apophenia Wrote:


I finally acquired a copy of the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia which Drich appealed to as backing for his use of the term 'propaganda'. Not much new, but still worth quoting; bolding is my emphasis. (Quoted in full.)

Quote:Manipulation of information to influence public opinion. The term comes from Congregatio de Propaganda Fide (Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith), a missionary organization established by the pope in 1622. Propagandists emphasize the elements of information that support their position and deemphasize or exclude those that do not. Misleading statements and even lies may be used to create the desired effect in the public audience. LOBBYING, advertising, and missionary activity are all forms of propaganda, but the term is most commonly used in the political arena. Prior to the 20th century, pictures and the written media were the principal instruments of propaganda; radio, television, motion pictures, and the Internet later joined their ranks. Authoritarian and totalitarian regimes use propaganda to win and keep the support of the populace. In wartime, propaganda directed by a country at its own civilian population and military forces can boost morale; propaganda aimed at the enemy is an element of PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE.

I am flattered!

Not only is this comment a week late (which means it's been chewing on you for a week, and you have been searching for some point of reference that you can turn in your favor) It's in the wrong thread. (which means you wanted me to see this despite it's actual revelance, to anything that has been discussed in at least 7 days..)

Even if I knew how or what this has to do with what we talked about, I don't think I would directly address it in this thread. I'm not trying to be mean, I just do not think it is revelant in anything being discussed here... If you need closure then I will conceed the point whatever it was... You won!

(November 16, 2012 at 1:00 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Multiple overlapping delusions, Drippy. You need some time with a mental health professional.... and maybe some strong meds.

Freud would flip cartwheels over this bloke.

(November 16, 2012 at 1:15 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(November 16, 2012 at 1:00 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Multiple overlapping delusions, Drippy. You need some time with a mental health professional.... and maybe some strong meds.

Freud would flip cartwheels over this bloke.

What does that say about him?

That he could do cartwheels.

Umm... he's very athletic? Especially for a dead man?

Never mind, poor old Dr Itch is being all 'profound' again.

(November 16, 2012 at 1:15 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(November 16, 2012 at 1:00 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Multiple overlapping delusions, Drippy. You need some time with a mental health professional.... and maybe some strong meds.

Freud would flip cartwheels over this bloke.

(November 16, 2012 at 12:47 pm)Drich Wrote: ..And appearently you do not understand how a conversation works. If person A and I are 3 or 4 posts into a conversation and person b decides to only read the last post, and from his position of ignorance decides he has everything figured out and can not help himself but to plop down his hasty secular reasoning in lew of an informed post, then I have absolutly every right in this "public domain" to remind person b (or c for that matter) that the comments he has addressed were not meant for him. I can also go on to remind that person that everything I say does not apply to everyone. If I quote the person, then the post I quoted is directed to that person specifically. If what I said to person A does not apply to you then you (just in the way of common courtesy) should have nothing to say in return. That does not mean if what I said does apply to you, you can not jump in. Or if I make an open post that is not addressed to anyone then I welcome all view point (even if it does not apply.)

In that case, you would inform person B that their premise has already been nullified by your previous posts. However, who's posts you're addressing are absolutely irrelevant.

(November 16, 2012 at 1:32 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Umm... he's very athletic? Especially for a dead man?

Never mind, poor old Dr Itch is being all 'profound' again.

Another topic he doesn't understand has been added to the list of things upon which he is prepared to spin christian bullshit. The vacuume of his brain has expanded in size again.

Drich Wrote:they all seemed to be based on the idea that my experience is my experience, or that a dream is not to be considered experience, etc.. The bigger picture here has nothing to do with what I have experienced, as this is what God taylored for me.

curious "logic" there

Lets pretend that everyone is all part of this "big picture" you speak of. Wouldn't their experiences indeed have a LOT to do with it? I mean what I'm trying to say here is, our lives are just a collection of experiences. If you think your god tailored (spelled correctly) something special just for you than that would definitely be an experience -- and in truth the only thing that mattered.

What we all are trying to say is that your experience, although it may have felt very real, doesn't mean it came from some absent deity with a special plan for your insignificant little life. Don't take it personally, humans in general have insignificant little lives.

The name of this thread is Experiencing Proof. I'd say your experiences are all you have and that they do indeed matter if you want to proffer up said 'proof.' What you feel your god "tailored for you" means nothing. 10,000 years of gods or 10,000 years of humans feeling things? hmmm, what's more likely?

(November 16, 2012 at 12:47 pm)Drich Wrote: ..And appearently you do not understand how a conversation works.

This coming from the guy who largely ignores what I have to say. You could, oh I don't know, manage a little "common courtesy" and answer some of my responses to your threads once in a while? Is that too difficult for you? Or do I have to address you as "Douche" from now on Drich? You decide if you're on the level or not.

Quote:If person A and I are 3 or 4 posts into a conversation and person b decides to only read the last post, and from his position of ignorance decides he has everything figured out and can not help himself but to plop down his hasty secular reasoning in lew of an informed post, then I have absolutly every right in this "public domain" to remind person b (or c for that matter) that the comments he has addressed were not meant for him. I can also go on to remind that person that everything I say does not apply to everyone. If I quote the person, then the post I quoted is directed to that person specifically. If what I said to person A does not apply to you then you (just in the way of common courtesy) should have nothing to say in return. That does not mean if what I said does apply to you, you can not jump in. Or if I make an open post that is not addressed to anyone then I welcome all view point (even if it does not apply.)

I refer you to the forum rules:

Quote:Debating is to be civil, and can either be a point for point debate or one where many points are raised and discussed, with rebuttals from either side coming in at various times.

Sorry, but you do not get to segregate your audience if you want to have a debate with us on the public domain.

If you cannot respond to all the points raised then you should try to address them all simultaneously where possible and apologise if you cannot and offer members a private discussion about said thread/topic with you instead.

So far Douche, all you've managed to demonstrate to me, is that your attitude, as usual, stinks.