Make a quotable quote here.

[Rev. Rye]

Well, what the ULC is, is basically an organisation that allows people to become ordained ministers for free without regards to their actual beliefs; anyone of any religious belief can become a ULC minister. All they need to do is fill out a form on ulc.net, and you can become qualified to marry people; That's pretty much the whole point of the ULC. You can get ordained for free, but you can also get a doctorate for $20; That's what Dr. Hunter S. Thompson did, but I never felt the need to upgrade, FWIW.

To quote RationalWiki:

To date, the vast majority of States require that only judges, officers of the Court, clergy, or ordained ministers have the legal right to bind two people in a marriage. Anyone who is an atheist, a free thinker, a born-again-church-hater, or who just wants their best friend to officiate is out of luck. The ULC's primary function is to provide people a back door beyond these archaic and religionistic laws.

The need for "non religious" clergy is doubly important for states which have legalized same-sex unions. The ULC provides this service for free.

And so, when Illinois fully legalises gay marriage, and Kathie and Nikki (my Lit teacher and her girlfriend), decide to upgrade their marriage for a third time (IL Civil union to NY Marriage to IL Marriage), they know who to call, and the big thing would be to craft a ceremony that wouldn't be as boring as many marriages are today.

For what it's worth, here's a list of famous ULC ministers

TL;DR: It's an organization that allows anyone to become an ordained minister for free. Sort of like a diploma mill, except that the US seems to actually recognise its power to ordain. No catch, no charge, no dogmas.

[Angrboda]

Does this seem like a useful discussion? Perhaps a critique of wordsmanship belongs in a thread devoted to ones own favorite quotes.

No what people don't like about me is that I AM FOCUSED, it simply does not seem that way because when you already know the checkmate move you skip all the claptrap from the opening move. I simply hate the dance, and if you make a claim to me, I am going to simply cut to the chase.

Focused? Yes and no. Sometimes you are focused and on point. I will be the first to admit that you are worth reading when you are on point.

However, as often as not, you have misunderstood what has been said, and are off tilting at your own private windmill composed of your misunderstanding of what was said or meant.

To paraphrase Mae West, when you're good, you're quite good. Unfortunately when you're bad, as is all too often the case, you're off in no man's land talking to yourself.

I don't know what to suggest. Perhaps a bit more charity. As a Taoist, that's a frequent tack of mine. Even if I know the mistakes a person is going to make, Spectrum excluded, I don't jump ahead. Making those mistakes is their path, it's the stuff they need to work through on their own, and jumping in with your own answers does worse than deprive them of the chance to learn, it shows them you don't trust them to lead, that maybe they aren't ready — and may make them more reluctant to dare the next time. I don't have any scientific evidence that this is a good way; all I know is it feels right to me.

[Brian37]

To paraphrase Mae West, when you're good, you're quite good. Unfortunately when you're bad, as is all too often the case, you're off in no man's land talking to yourself.

So much so that my irony meter is flying of the charts with a response from someone who claims that I am tlaking to myself. That would make you nothing, and I know that you don't think you are nothing, and I don't think you are either.

If I were talking to myself why would I be getting any views on my posts or threads at all? Obviously it merely ammounts to sometimes you like what I say but most of the time you dont. Ok, just put it that way instead of attempting to marginalize me. I am not a clone of you so do not expect me to be.

[Angrboda]

To paraphrase Mae West, when you're good, you're quite good. Unfortunately when you're bad, as is all too often the case, you're off in no man's land talking to yourself.

So much so that my irony meter is flying of the charts with a response from someone who claims that I am tlaking to myself. That would make you nothing, and I know that you don't think you are nothing, and I don't think you are either.

If I were talking to myself why would I be getting any views on my posts or threads at all? Obviously it merely ammounts to sometimes you like what I say but most of the time you dont. Ok, just put it that way instead of attempting to marginalize me. I am not a clone of you so do not expect me to be.

I'm not trying to marginalize you, Brian. Nor am I relabeling mere dislike as some bogus intellectual labeling. Seriously, some times, far too often, you go so far off track there is no point in responding. If you don't trust me, ask other people if it's true. Check it out, man. You're missing something you need to pay attention to.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't think you'll ever be up to my level, but some of the things you've said have astounded me with their insight. If you think that, in some bizarre, we're all equal, bullshit sense that you will ever be my intellectual equal, I suggest you get over it. Ain't happening. Am I arrogant for thinking so? Probably not. That doesn't mean that we can't meet "as equals" on the field of battle; yet for whatever reason, you seem to need to apportion blame unequally to others than yourself. I know this is the Dunning-Kruger effect, and it is probably pointless to try to reach out to you. But I can't stop myself.

Bro', you ain't seeing it straight. Come have a few beers with us and we'll work it out. Okay?

[Brian37]

So much so that my irony meter is flying of the charts with a response from someone who claims that I am tlaking to myself. That would make you nothing, and I know that you don't think you are nothing, and I don't think you are either.

If I were talking to myself why would I be getting any views on my posts or threads at all? Obviously it merely ammounts to sometimes you like what I say but most of the time you dont. Ok, just put it that way instead of attempting to marginalize me. I am not a clone of you so do not expect me to be.

I'm not trying to marginalize you, Brian. Nor am I relabeling mere dislike as some bogus intellectual labeling. Seriously, some times, far too often, you go so far off track there is no point in responding. If you don't trust me, ask other people if it's true. Check it out, man. You're missing something you need to pay attention to.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't think you'll ever be up to my level, but some of the things you've said have astounded me with their insight. If you think that, in some bizarre, we're all equal, bullshit sense that you will ever be my intellectual equal, I suggest you get over it. Ain't happening. Am I arrogant for thinking so? Probably not. That doesn't mean that we can't meet "as equals" on the field of battle; yet for whatever reason, you seem to need to apportion blame unequally to others than yourself. I know this is the Dunning-Kruger effect, and it is probably pointless to try to reach out to you. But I can't stop myself.

Bro', you ain't seeing it straight. Come have a few beers with us and we'll work it out. Okay?

"off the track" you think I do not get that when people say that about me?

This isn't my first thread or first website. With me it depends. I have read threads where a subtopic comment has bothered me and don't let that separate subject go. So yes, I can and do go off the track.

But with the specific of all superstitions and god claims, I cut throught the elaborate claptrap and cut to the chase. My tactic is simple, I DO NOT DANCE. Wading in the mental masturbation of a skunk in a tux may be fun and the plad of their bad logic may look pretty, but the beginning of bad logic always starts with a naked assertion.

Ochams Razor is pretty damned conssitant with the reality of nature. Things go from simplicity to complexity, not the other way arround. So when you have the choice of a starting point being simple and not convoluted when asserting a starting point, the one with the least superflous baggages is your most likely answer.

So when you say I jump all over the place, It may seem like carpet bombing, but the intent of it is to get the focus on the starting point. Now if you want to argue that that tactic isn't always appropreate, that would be a more honest assesment. But what you are doing here is simply arguing for your personal taste in how you deal with debate.

So again, to understand me and my tactic in debate, it is simple. I HATE THE DANCE. I hate that people will put the cart before the horse, so I simply use very short paragraphs to demonstrate that reality does not need to be explained in giant walls of personal pet crap. You may not deconvert them with that on the spot, but the doubt is planted and can and does foirce them to deal with the formula that puts the naked assertion in as their starting point.

I have been at this for 10 years making 10 to 30 posts almost every day so I have seen lots and my experience has always lead me to the knowledge that if the starting point sucks, anything after the = symbol is crap based on the naked assertion before the = symbol.

Again all this amounts to is you merely not liking my tactic. And again, fine and that is too be expected because we are not clones of each other.

[Angrboda]

Obviously it merely ammounts to sometimes you like what I say but most of the time you dont.

Again all this amounts to is you merely not liking my tactic.

First you assert I don't like the substance of what you have to say.

Then you assert that I don't like the style with which you say it.


You're just full of excuses, aren't you Brian.


Of course, heaven forbid you should examine what's on your side of the equals sign. I'm all for charity, but you're entirely too full of yourself.

Oh, and for what it's worth, I've been doing this for over 20 years.

[Faith No More]

Seriously, some times, far too often, you go so far off track there is no point in responding. If you don't trust me, ask other people if it's true.

'Tis true, and I say that with no malicious intent, Bran. What she's saying, however, is a valid critique.

[Brian37]

Obviously it merely ammounts to sometimes you like what I say but most of the time you dont.

Again all this amounts to is you merely not liking my tactic.

First you assert I don't like the substance of what you have to say.

Then you assert that I don't like the style with which you say it.


You're just full of excuses, aren't you Brian.


Of course, heaven forbid you should examine what's on your side of the equals sign. I'm all for charity, but you're entirely too full of yourself.

Oh, and for what it's worth, I've been doing this for over 20 years.

You don't like the way I do things. I did not say you dissagree with me all the time. I am making an assesment of your cricisism as an over all view of me. You don't like my posts most of the time, the fact that you may agree with the substance sometimes may not always agree with your cricism of my dilivery.

Cut the crap. I still amounts that you don't OVER ALL AND ON AVERAGE, like my approach.

I don't assume that you agree with me all the time or imply that you should agree with me all the time.

[Whateverist]

Does this seem like a useful discussion? Perhaps a critique of wordsmanship belongs in a thread devoted to ones own favorite quotes.

That or a hefty dose of meds.

You funny.

Are you suggesting that reading my posts may be a successful alternative to ambien?

[Edwardo Piet]

Perfectionism leads to procrastination and over-editing.

---

Sometimes people ask me how I feel and I say "good enough" and they say "only good enough?" and I say "good enough is good enough".