Why Jesus Has More Brides Than Dracula
Why Jesus Has More Brides Than Dracula
Yes, Ma'am!!! Done!!!
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Why Jesus Has More Brides Than Dracula
Nomad;469070 wrote: [quote=Magenta flame;468774]edited
Pam you'll find back in the ancient days Women were entitled to alot more than they are now. We read the circumstances of women in the bible and it turns out that it was not a common institution to neglect women in the different nations at that time.
Why oh why did it take us 2000 yrs to get that one right :rolleyes:
Bang on, Nomad! You've got it. Yes, Christianity has been the greatest instrument of oppression against Western women over the last two thousand years.
The following is an extract from my post 'Christianity, Fundamentalism and Human Rights' which can be found in another internet forum:
....Joachim Kahl - a former German pastor - writes: 'Many of the Church Fathers are characterised by an attitude of deep hostility to women which is quite obscene.' Thus Tertullian calls woman 'the gate through which the devil enters'; and Jerome the Vulgate declares: 'woman is the gate of the devil, the way of evil, the sting of the scorpion, in a word, a dangerous thing'.
Throughout the centuries many Christian males have sought to rationalize their fear and resentment of women by finding support for these feelings in biblical texts. They have not had to look very far. For example, here is how Jesus speaks to his own mother: 'Woman, what have I to do with thee?' (John 2:4); while Paul writes to the Corinthians: 'Only man, not woman, is the image and glory of God - woman is only the glory of man' (1 Corinthians 11:7); and then to Timothy: 'Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.' (1 Timothy 2:11-14). And here is the most catastrophic biblical text for females to date - 'You shall not allow a witch to live' (Exodus 22:18). Legions of innocent females - old women, young women, and little girls - were degraded, mutilated, tortured, and burned alive on the basis of this last injunction.
Biblical texts of this sort were obviously produced by cultural milieus utterly removed in time and outlook from our own: so removed, in fact, that we experience the texts as embarrassing. But this is not the view of the Christian fundamentalist woman-hating oppressor who is very much alive today. For this individual, such texts are as binding now as they were long, long ago: more than this, they are manna from heaven - food and drink, that is, in secular parlance.
Calumny (slander) is one weapon that has been deployed by the Christian religion to oppress women. But this religion has also resorted to using nice definitions of women for the same end. For example, the velvet-tongued spokesmen of the Church depicted women as 'the angel of the house', as beings of 'purity', 'fine' and 'superior' in virtue to men. Such definitions are only ostensibly flattering and ennobling for they operate subtly to actually constrain and undermine women. Thus, women were too fine and delicate for the 'jungle' of the workplace and too pure and virtuous to seek after money and the independence that it brings. To proclaim the superior virtue of the oppressed, then, is often a mask for controlling them and keeping them subjugated. As the social theorist Susan Mumm observes: "Lip service to 'superiority' can be oppressive, because it can box individuals or groups into romanticised roles that limit their human choices. While declaring a group 'inferior' is obviously oppressive, casting others as 'superior' can, especially if the categorised group acquiesces in this stereotyping, be as disabling and limiting as assumptions of inferiority."....
Pam you'll find back in the ancient days Women were entitled to alot more than they are now. We read the circumstances of women in the bible and it turns out that it was not a common institution to neglect women in the different nations at that time.
Why oh why did it take us 2000 yrs to get that one right :rolleyes:
Bang on, Nomad! You've got it. Yes, Christianity has been the greatest instrument of oppression against Western women over the last two thousand years.
The following is an extract from my post 'Christianity, Fundamentalism and Human Rights' which can be found in another internet forum:
....Joachim Kahl - a former German pastor - writes: 'Many of the Church Fathers are characterised by an attitude of deep hostility to women which is quite obscene.' Thus Tertullian calls woman 'the gate through which the devil enters'; and Jerome the Vulgate declares: 'woman is the gate of the devil, the way of evil, the sting of the scorpion, in a word, a dangerous thing'.
Throughout the centuries many Christian males have sought to rationalize their fear and resentment of women by finding support for these feelings in biblical texts. They have not had to look very far. For example, here is how Jesus speaks to his own mother: 'Woman, what have I to do with thee?' (John 2:4); while Paul writes to the Corinthians: 'Only man, not woman, is the image and glory of God - woman is only the glory of man' (1 Corinthians 11:7); and then to Timothy: 'Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.' (1 Timothy 2:11-14). And here is the most catastrophic biblical text for females to date - 'You shall not allow a witch to live' (Exodus 22:18). Legions of innocent females - old women, young women, and little girls - were degraded, mutilated, tortured, and burned alive on the basis of this last injunction.
Biblical texts of this sort were obviously produced by cultural milieus utterly removed in time and outlook from our own: so removed, in fact, that we experience the texts as embarrassing. But this is not the view of the Christian fundamentalist woman-hating oppressor who is very much alive today. For this individual, such texts are as binding now as they were long, long ago: more than this, they are manna from heaven - food and drink, that is, in secular parlance.
Calumny (slander) is one weapon that has been deployed by the Christian religion to oppress women. But this religion has also resorted to using nice definitions of women for the same end. For example, the velvet-tongued spokesmen of the Church depicted women as 'the angel of the house', as beings of 'purity', 'fine' and 'superior' in virtue to men. Such definitions are only ostensibly flattering and ennobling for they operate subtly to actually constrain and undermine women. Thus, women were too fine and delicate for the 'jungle' of the workplace and too pure and virtuous to seek after money and the independence that it brings. To proclaim the superior virtue of the oppressed, then, is often a mask for controlling them and keeping them subjugated. As the social theorist Susan Mumm observes: "Lip service to 'superiority' can be oppressive, because it can box individuals or groups into romanticised roles that limit their human choices. While declaring a group 'inferior' is obviously oppressive, casting others as 'superior' can, especially if the categorised group acquiesces in this stereotyping, be as disabling and limiting as assumptions of inferiority."....
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Why Jesus Has More Brides Than Dracula
Glaswegian;468646 wrote: Then why didn't you post another reply stating that you felt your opening post in this thread was too harsh? Why didn't you make a second reply as follows:
'The reply I made to Glaswegian - viz. "Methinks you need to spend some time on the couch, friend." - was too harsh.'
Why didn't you state this publicly through your own volition (i.e., before you were forced to do so in post #4 once I'd revealed what you had done)? If you had done this then you would have acted admirably - in my eyes at least. But no: what you did instead was try to make it seem as if your opening post had never been made at all by deleting it very quickly. Why did you feel the need to do this?
The word cowardice here is yours not mine, friend. But the reason why you alighted on it is now glaringly obvious to everyone in this forum.
I think that your choice of username is inappropriate. For clearly you are unwilling to be held accountable for what you post, which is to say, you are afraid to stand by what you post.
Since you were afraid to stand by your post I think it is safe to assume that none of your forebears fought at the Alamo. Or if they did then they didn't stay for very long.
:wah: Thanks for the laugh, Glas. It's good to have a giggle with morning coffee.
And, guys, I appreciate the support in my absense. This place is phenominal.
'The reply I made to Glaswegian - viz. "Methinks you need to spend some time on the couch, friend." - was too harsh.'
Why didn't you state this publicly through your own volition (i.e., before you were forced to do so in post #4 once I'd revealed what you had done)? If you had done this then you would have acted admirably - in my eyes at least. But no: what you did instead was try to make it seem as if your opening post had never been made at all by deleting it very quickly. Why did you feel the need to do this?
The word cowardice here is yours not mine, friend. But the reason why you alighted on it is now glaringly obvious to everyone in this forum.
I think that your choice of username is inappropriate. For clearly you are unwilling to be held accountable for what you post, which is to say, you are afraid to stand by what you post.
Since you were afraid to stand by your post I think it is safe to assume that none of your forebears fought at the Alamo. Or if they did then they didn't stay for very long.
:wah: Thanks for the laugh, Glas. It's good to have a giggle with morning coffee.
And, guys, I appreciate the support in my absense. This place is phenominal.
Why Jesus Has More Brides Than Dracula
well ACC i think you're a lily-livered coward too!:rolleyes: ........er glas, why do you think we have a delete option? oftentimes people rethink a post and certainly don't need to be excoriated for it. it shows good common sense. man, you were on that like white on rice....how petty.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Why Jesus Has More Brides Than Dracula
Accountable;469247 wrote: :wah: Thanks for the laugh, Glas.You're welcome.
Accountable wrote: It's good to have a giggle with morning coffee.
Isn't it?
Accountable wrote: This place is phenominal.
You haven't seen nuthin' yet, Accountable....
Accountable wrote: It's good to have a giggle with morning coffee.
Isn't it?
Accountable wrote: This place is phenominal.
You haven't seen nuthin' yet, Accountable....
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Why Jesus Has More Brides Than Dracula
AussiePam;468865 wrote: actually had some convent days myself
Earlier this year I read a book called 'The Spiral Staircase' by the English writer and religious academic, Karen Armstrong. Perhaps you have read it, Aussie Pam? The book provides a powerful and disturbing account of the seven years spent by Armstrong in an English convent from the age of seventeen to twenty-four (1962-1969). Throughout those years Armstrong was discouraged from questioning her religious faith in any way by the convent's superiors. She was required, under threat of punishment, to systematically block out a range of 'sinful' questions from her mind. Some of these questions are described by Armstrong in the following extract from her book:
'....Then there were my secret doubts. Even though I tried to tiptoe gingerly around difficult articles of faith, I could not stop wondering whether the Virgin Mary really had been conceived without Original Sin and been taken up body and soul into heaven after her death. How did anybody know that Jesus was God? And was there even a God out there at all? Was that why I never encountered him in prayer? As I knelt in the chapel, watching my sisters kneeling quietly with their heads bowed contemplatively in their hands, I would sometimes wonder whether it wasn't a bit like the Emperor's New Clothes. Nobody ever experienced God but nobody dared to admit it.' (Emphasis in original text)
The blocking out process which the convent superiors sought to inculcate in Armstrong (and her fellow nuns) produced many damaging effects on its victims: for example, depression, emotional withdrawal, panic attacks, nervous breakdown, anorexia nervosa, self-mutilation and attempted suicide. After years of trying to reconcile her need for intellectual honesty with the dubious assumptions of her faith, Armstrong suffered a mental breakdown and was hospitalised. On recovering she promptly abandoned her life as a nun.
Can you, Aussie Pam, identify in any way with the brief account of Armstrong's experience in the English convent given above? Does it bring to mind anything you remember about your own situation in the convent that you once attended?
Earlier this year I read a book called 'The Spiral Staircase' by the English writer and religious academic, Karen Armstrong. Perhaps you have read it, Aussie Pam? The book provides a powerful and disturbing account of the seven years spent by Armstrong in an English convent from the age of seventeen to twenty-four (1962-1969). Throughout those years Armstrong was discouraged from questioning her religious faith in any way by the convent's superiors. She was required, under threat of punishment, to systematically block out a range of 'sinful' questions from her mind. Some of these questions are described by Armstrong in the following extract from her book:
'....Then there were my secret doubts. Even though I tried to tiptoe gingerly around difficult articles of faith, I could not stop wondering whether the Virgin Mary really had been conceived without Original Sin and been taken up body and soul into heaven after her death. How did anybody know that Jesus was God? And was there even a God out there at all? Was that why I never encountered him in prayer? As I knelt in the chapel, watching my sisters kneeling quietly with their heads bowed contemplatively in their hands, I would sometimes wonder whether it wasn't a bit like the Emperor's New Clothes. Nobody ever experienced God but nobody dared to admit it.' (Emphasis in original text)
The blocking out process which the convent superiors sought to inculcate in Armstrong (and her fellow nuns) produced many damaging effects on its victims: for example, depression, emotional withdrawal, panic attacks, nervous breakdown, anorexia nervosa, self-mutilation and attempted suicide. After years of trying to reconcile her need for intellectual honesty with the dubious assumptions of her faith, Armstrong suffered a mental breakdown and was hospitalised. On recovering she promptly abandoned her life as a nun.
Can you, Aussie Pam, identify in any way with the brief account of Armstrong's experience in the English convent given above? Does it bring to mind anything you remember about your own situation in the convent that you once attended?
Why Jesus Has More Brides Than Dracula
Glaswegian - you're pushing some kind of agenda here that I don't care for, so I think this will be my final comment in this thread.
I view my convent days as a valuable part of my ongoing journey of life. I was a Tertiary of the Order (Anglican), not a professed nun. The sisters were human, and not perfect. My memories of them all are gentle. I learned a lot. In the days when AIDS was considered a disease of total contamination, it was these Sisters who offered themselves to look after sufferers. Not perfect, but striving towards something good, outside themselves.
I view my convent days as a valuable part of my ongoing journey of life. I was a Tertiary of the Order (Anglican), not a professed nun. The sisters were human, and not perfect. My memories of them all are gentle. I learned a lot. In the days when AIDS was considered a disease of total contamination, it was these Sisters who offered themselves to look after sufferers. Not perfect, but striving towards something good, outside themselves.
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"
Why Jesus Has More Brides Than Dracula
Jesus, being a real person, is believed to have more wives than Dracula as Dracula is a fictional character. That leaves Jesus 1 Dracula 0.
Some debate that Mary was his wife but....
If you ask Dan Brown and Michael Baigeant, Jesus had more children too.
Some debate that Mary was his wife but....
If you ask Dan Brown and Michael Baigeant, Jesus had more children too.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Why Jesus Has More Brides Than Dracula
koan;469512 wrote: Jesus, being a real person, is believed to have more wives than Dracula as Dracula is a fictional character. That leaves Jesus 1 Dracula 0.
Some debate that Mary was his wife but....
If you ask Dan Brown and Michael Baigeant, Jesus had more children too.
koan! Are my eyes deceiving me? Is it really you? Yes it is! Oh wonderful! How wonderful it is to see you again! Aw shucks! Did you really? Well, if you must know - I missed you as well.
But what is this you're saying?
koan wrote: Jesus, being a real person
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you here, koan. I don't think Jesus was a real person at all.
The Christian's delusional belief system is founded on the assumption that Jesus was an actual historical figure who lived in or around the time of Pontius Pilate. But the case against the historical existence of Jesus is compelling. One of the most persuasive arguments against the historical existence of Jesus has been made by Professor Michael Martin in his book The Case Against Christianity. Perhaps you are familiar with this book?
In my view, the ontological status of Jesus is no different from that of, say, 'Merlin' or 'Walter Mitty' or 'The Boy Who Cried Wolf'. That is, he exists only within the context of a work of fiction - in this case, The New Testament.
koan wrote: Dracula is a fictional character
I agree. Dracula is a fictional character invented by Bram Stoker. And that is precisely why Dracula features in the title of this thread. Because I am comparing like with like, one fictional character with another - Jesus with Dracula.
Some debate that Mary was his wife but....
If you ask Dan Brown and Michael Baigeant, Jesus had more children too.
koan! Are my eyes deceiving me? Is it really you? Yes it is! Oh wonderful! How wonderful it is to see you again! Aw shucks! Did you really? Well, if you must know - I missed you as well.
But what is this you're saying?
koan wrote: Jesus, being a real person
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you here, koan. I don't think Jesus was a real person at all.
The Christian's delusional belief system is founded on the assumption that Jesus was an actual historical figure who lived in or around the time of Pontius Pilate. But the case against the historical existence of Jesus is compelling. One of the most persuasive arguments against the historical existence of Jesus has been made by Professor Michael Martin in his book The Case Against Christianity. Perhaps you are familiar with this book?
In my view, the ontological status of Jesus is no different from that of, say, 'Merlin' or 'Walter Mitty' or 'The Boy Who Cried Wolf'. That is, he exists only within the context of a work of fiction - in this case, The New Testament.
koan wrote: Dracula is a fictional character
I agree. Dracula is a fictional character invented by Bram Stoker. And that is precisely why Dracula features in the title of this thread. Because I am comparing like with like, one fictional character with another - Jesus with Dracula.
Why Jesus Has More Brides Than Dracula
Troll (Internet)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Internet troll)
Jump to: navigation, search
This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims.
Please help Wikipedia by adding references. See the talk page for details.
For other uses of the word, see Troll (disambiguation).
In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who enters an established community such as an online discussion forum and intentionally tries to cause disruption, most often in the form of posting inflammatory, off-topic, insulting, or otherwise inappropriate messages.
Contents
[hide]
* 1 Etymology
o 1.1 Pre-history
o 1.2 Trolling in the 1990s
* 2 Identity
* 3 Usage
* 4 See also
o 4.1 Specific trolling subcultures
o 4.2 Related trolling terminology
o 4.3 Related terms
* 5 External links
o 5.1 Troll FAQs
[edit] Etymology
The contemporary use of the term first appeared on Usenet groups in the late 1980s. It is widely thought to be a contraction of the phrase trolling for suckers, itself derived from the sport fishing technique of trolling. The latter can be compared with trawling.
The word likely gained currency because of its apt second meaning, drawn from the trolls portrayed in Scandinavian folklore and children's tales; they are often ugly, obnoxious creatures bent on mischief and wickedness. The image of the troll under the bridge in the "Three Billy Goats Gruff" emphasizes the troll's negative reaction to outsiders intruding on its physical environment, particularly those who intend to graze in its domain without permission.
The origin of the phrase has been discussed in oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court (eBay v. MercExchange, 29 March 2006):
JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, is -- is the troll the scary thing under the bridge, or is it a fishing technique?...
MR. PHILLIPS [attorney for eBay]: For my clients, it's been the scary thing under the bridge....
JUSTICE KENNEDY: I mean, is that what the troll is?
MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I believe that's... what it is, although...maybe we should think of it more as Orcs, now that we have a new generation.
[edit] Pre-history
Prior to DejaNews's archiving of Usenet, accounts of trolling were sketchy, there being little evidence to sort through. After that time, however, the huge archives were available for researchers. Perhaps the earliest, although poorly documented, case is the 1982-83 saga of Alex and Joan from the CompuServe forums. Van Gelder, a reporter for Ms. magazine, documented the incident in 1996 in an article for her publication. Alex (in real life a very shy 50 year old psychiatrist from New York) pretended to be a highly bombastic, anti-religious, post-car-accident, wheelchair-bound, mute woman named "Joan", "in order to better relate to his female patients". This went on for two years, and "Joan" had become a hugely detailed character, with an array of emotional relationships. These only began to fall apart after "Joan" coaxed an online friend of hers into an affair with Alex.
Even those who barely knew Joan felt implicated — and somehow betrayed — by Alex's deception. Many of us on-line like to believe that we're a utopian community of the future, and Alex's experiment proved to us all that technology is no shield against deceit. We lost our innocence, if not our faith. (Van Gelder, 1996, p.534)
[edit] Trolling in the 1990s
One early reference to troll found in the Google Usenet archive was by user "Mark Miller", directed toward the user "Tad", on February 8, 1990.[1] However, it is unclear if this instance represents a usage of "troll" as it is known today, or if it was simply a chance choice of epithet:
You are so far beyond being able to understand anything anyone here says that this is just converging on uselessness. The really sad part is that you really believe that you're winning. You are a shocking waste of natural resources — kindly re-integrate yourself into the food-chain. Just go die in your sleep you mindless flatulent troll.
The more likely derivation can be found in the phrase "trolling for newbies", popularized in the early 1990s in the Usenet group, alt.folklore.urban. Commonly, what is meant is a relatively gentle inside joke by veteran users, presenting questions or topics that had been so overdone; only a new user would respond to them earnestly. For example, a veteran of the group might make a post on the common misconception that glass flows over time. Long-time readers would both recognize the poster's name and know that the topic had been done to death already, but new subscribers to the group would not "get it" and respond. These types of trolls served as a Shibboleth to identify group insiders. By the late 1990s, alt.folklore.urban had such heavy traffic and participation that trolling of this sort was frowned upon. Others expanded the term to include the practice of playing a seriously misinformed or deluded user, even in newsgroups where one was not a regular; these were often attempts at humor rather than provocation. In such contexts, the noun troll usually referred to an act of trolling, rather than to the author.
Recently, the word troll is also frequently used as a synonym for flamebait, even though the two words have distinct meanings.
[edit] Identity
In academic literature, the practice was first documented by Judith Donath (1999), who used several anecdotal examples from various Usenet newsgroups in her discussion. Donath's paper outlines the ambiguity of identity in a disembodied "virtual community" [2]:
In the physical world there is an inherent unity to the self, for the body provides a compelling and convenient definition of identity. The norm is: one body, one identity. ... The virtual world is different. It is composed of information rather than matter.
Donath provides a concise overview of identity deception games which trade on the confusion between physical and epistemic community:
Trolling is a game about identity deception, albeit one that is played without the consent of most of the players. The troll attempts to pass as a legitimate participant, sharing the group's common interests and concerns; the newsgroups members, if they are cognizant of trolls and other identity deceptions, attempt to both distinguish real from trolling postings, and upon judging a poster a troll, make the offending poster leave the group. Their success at the former depends on how well they — and the troll — understand identity cues; their success at the latter depends on whether the troll's enjoyment is sufficiently diminished or outweighed by the costs imposed by the group.
Trolls can be costly in several ways. A troll can disrupt the discussion on a newsgroup, disseminate bad advice, and damage the feeling of trust in the newsgroup community. Furthermore, in a group that has become sensitized to trolling — where the rate of deception is high — many honestly naïve questions may be quickly rejected as trollings. This can be quite off-putting to the new user who upon venturing a first posting is immediately bombarded with angry accusations. Even if the accusation is unfounded, being branded a troll is quite damaging to one's online reputation." (Donath, 1999, p. 45)[3]
[edit] Usage
The term troll is highly subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. The term is often used to discredit an opposing position, or its proponent, by argument ad hominem.
Do not feed the trolls.
Enlarge
Do not feed the trolls.
Often, calling someone a troll makes assumptions about a writer's motives. Regardless of the circumstances, controversial posts may attract a particularly strong response from those unfamiliar with the robust dialogue found in some online, rather than physical, communities.
Experienced participants in online forums know that the most effective way to discourage a troll is usually to ignore him or her, because responding encourages a true troll to continue disruptive posts — hence the often-seen warning "Please do not feed the troll", for which PDNFTT is a common initialism.
[edit] See also
Look up troll in
Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
[edit] Specific trolling subcultures
* Troll organizations
* Trolltalk Trollgnaws: alt.fan.karl-malden.nose
[edit] Related trolling terminology
* Baiting
* Kibo
* Thread breaking
* Gadfly (social)
* AOLamer
* Breaching experiment
* Devil's advocate
* Virtual community
[edit] Related terms
* Ostracism
* Schadenfreude
* Wikihumour: How to deal with Poles
For Wikipedia's official views on trolls, see Wikipedia:Troll.
[edit] External links
* Good article on trolls and the 'art' of trolling by Steve Myers
* Internet Trolls - A Guide : Basic advice and useful information.
* Annoy.com: A professional troll who fights for freedom of speech.
* Adequacy.org: Archive of Adequacy.org, a troll site.
* The Watford Dark Side: A troll HQ, where trolls plot against unsuspecting forum communities.
* Troll Paellas : Troll Paellas information.
* Searching for Safety Online: Managing "Trolling" in a Feminist Forum
* Trolling for information: How to use trolling techniques in order to lure information (together with fravia's "Trolls and Schopenhauer" comparison).
* Phil's Field Guide to Trolls, a martial-arts oriented troll guide
[edit] Troll FAQs
* General, specific and fundamental trolling lore
* urban75 Trolling FAQ: Comprehensive guide to the dark art of trolling
* alt.troll FAQ (how-to)
* alt.syntax.tactical FAQ
* False repentance at MeatballWiki
* The relationship between social context cues and uninhibited verbal behavior in computer-mediated communication
* Moral panic and alternative identity construction in Usenet
* Troll entry in the Jargon File
* Plonk in Ursine's Jargon Wiki
* Giveen's Guide To Internet Trolls
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29"
Categories: Articles which may contain original research | People | Internet culture | Internet terminology | Internet forum terminology | Internet trolling | Popular psychology | Inte
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Internet troll)
Jump to: navigation, search
This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims.
Please help Wikipedia by adding references. See the talk page for details.
For other uses of the word, see Troll (disambiguation).
In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who enters an established community such as an online discussion forum and intentionally tries to cause disruption, most often in the form of posting inflammatory, off-topic, insulting, or otherwise inappropriate messages.
Contents
[hide]
* 1 Etymology
o 1.1 Pre-history
o 1.2 Trolling in the 1990s
* 2 Identity
* 3 Usage
* 4 See also
o 4.1 Specific trolling subcultures
o 4.2 Related trolling terminology
o 4.3 Related terms
* 5 External links
o 5.1 Troll FAQs
[edit] Etymology
The contemporary use of the term first appeared on Usenet groups in the late 1980s. It is widely thought to be a contraction of the phrase trolling for suckers, itself derived from the sport fishing technique of trolling. The latter can be compared with trawling.
The word likely gained currency because of its apt second meaning, drawn from the trolls portrayed in Scandinavian folklore and children's tales; they are often ugly, obnoxious creatures bent on mischief and wickedness. The image of the troll under the bridge in the "Three Billy Goats Gruff" emphasizes the troll's negative reaction to outsiders intruding on its physical environment, particularly those who intend to graze in its domain without permission.
The origin of the phrase has been discussed in oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court (eBay v. MercExchange, 29 March 2006):
JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, is -- is the troll the scary thing under the bridge, or is it a fishing technique?...
MR. PHILLIPS [attorney for eBay]: For my clients, it's been the scary thing under the bridge....
JUSTICE KENNEDY: I mean, is that what the troll is?
MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I believe that's... what it is, although...maybe we should think of it more as Orcs, now that we have a new generation.
[edit] Pre-history
Prior to DejaNews's archiving of Usenet, accounts of trolling were sketchy, there being little evidence to sort through. After that time, however, the huge archives were available for researchers. Perhaps the earliest, although poorly documented, case is the 1982-83 saga of Alex and Joan from the CompuServe forums. Van Gelder, a reporter for Ms. magazine, documented the incident in 1996 in an article for her publication. Alex (in real life a very shy 50 year old psychiatrist from New York) pretended to be a highly bombastic, anti-religious, post-car-accident, wheelchair-bound, mute woman named "Joan", "in order to better relate to his female patients". This went on for two years, and "Joan" had become a hugely detailed character, with an array of emotional relationships. These only began to fall apart after "Joan" coaxed an online friend of hers into an affair with Alex.
Even those who barely knew Joan felt implicated — and somehow betrayed — by Alex's deception. Many of us on-line like to believe that we're a utopian community of the future, and Alex's experiment proved to us all that technology is no shield against deceit. We lost our innocence, if not our faith. (Van Gelder, 1996, p.534)
[edit] Trolling in the 1990s
One early reference to troll found in the Google Usenet archive was by user "Mark Miller", directed toward the user "Tad", on February 8, 1990.[1] However, it is unclear if this instance represents a usage of "troll" as it is known today, or if it was simply a chance choice of epithet:
You are so far beyond being able to understand anything anyone here says that this is just converging on uselessness. The really sad part is that you really believe that you're winning. You are a shocking waste of natural resources — kindly re-integrate yourself into the food-chain. Just go die in your sleep you mindless flatulent troll.
The more likely derivation can be found in the phrase "trolling for newbies", popularized in the early 1990s in the Usenet group, alt.folklore.urban. Commonly, what is meant is a relatively gentle inside joke by veteran users, presenting questions or topics that had been so overdone; only a new user would respond to them earnestly. For example, a veteran of the group might make a post on the common misconception that glass flows over time. Long-time readers would both recognize the poster's name and know that the topic had been done to death already, but new subscribers to the group would not "get it" and respond. These types of trolls served as a Shibboleth to identify group insiders. By the late 1990s, alt.folklore.urban had such heavy traffic and participation that trolling of this sort was frowned upon. Others expanded the term to include the practice of playing a seriously misinformed or deluded user, even in newsgroups where one was not a regular; these were often attempts at humor rather than provocation. In such contexts, the noun troll usually referred to an act of trolling, rather than to the author.
Recently, the word troll is also frequently used as a synonym for flamebait, even though the two words have distinct meanings.
[edit] Identity
In academic literature, the practice was first documented by Judith Donath (1999), who used several anecdotal examples from various Usenet newsgroups in her discussion. Donath's paper outlines the ambiguity of identity in a disembodied "virtual community" [2]:
In the physical world there is an inherent unity to the self, for the body provides a compelling and convenient definition of identity. The norm is: one body, one identity. ... The virtual world is different. It is composed of information rather than matter.
Donath provides a concise overview of identity deception games which trade on the confusion between physical and epistemic community:
Trolling is a game about identity deception, albeit one that is played without the consent of most of the players. The troll attempts to pass as a legitimate participant, sharing the group's common interests and concerns; the newsgroups members, if they are cognizant of trolls and other identity deceptions, attempt to both distinguish real from trolling postings, and upon judging a poster a troll, make the offending poster leave the group. Their success at the former depends on how well they — and the troll — understand identity cues; their success at the latter depends on whether the troll's enjoyment is sufficiently diminished or outweighed by the costs imposed by the group.
Trolls can be costly in several ways. A troll can disrupt the discussion on a newsgroup, disseminate bad advice, and damage the feeling of trust in the newsgroup community. Furthermore, in a group that has become sensitized to trolling — where the rate of deception is high — many honestly naïve questions may be quickly rejected as trollings. This can be quite off-putting to the new user who upon venturing a first posting is immediately bombarded with angry accusations. Even if the accusation is unfounded, being branded a troll is quite damaging to one's online reputation." (Donath, 1999, p. 45)[3]
[edit] Usage
The term troll is highly subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. The term is often used to discredit an opposing position, or its proponent, by argument ad hominem.
Do not feed the trolls.
Enlarge
Do not feed the trolls.
Often, calling someone a troll makes assumptions about a writer's motives. Regardless of the circumstances, controversial posts may attract a particularly strong response from those unfamiliar with the robust dialogue found in some online, rather than physical, communities.
Experienced participants in online forums know that the most effective way to discourage a troll is usually to ignore him or her, because responding encourages a true troll to continue disruptive posts — hence the often-seen warning "Please do not feed the troll", for which PDNFTT is a common initialism.
[edit] See also
Look up troll in
Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
[edit] Specific trolling subcultures
* Troll organizations
* Trolltalk Trollgnaws: alt.fan.karl-malden.nose
[edit] Related trolling terminology
* Baiting
* Kibo
* Thread breaking
* Gadfly (social)
* AOLamer
* Breaching experiment
* Devil's advocate
* Virtual community
[edit] Related terms
* Ostracism
* Schadenfreude
* Wikihumour: How to deal with Poles
For Wikipedia's official views on trolls, see Wikipedia:Troll.
[edit] External links
* Good article on trolls and the 'art' of trolling by Steve Myers
* Internet Trolls - A Guide : Basic advice and useful information.
* Annoy.com: A professional troll who fights for freedom of speech.
* Adequacy.org: Archive of Adequacy.org, a troll site.
* The Watford Dark Side: A troll HQ, where trolls plot against unsuspecting forum communities.
* Troll Paellas : Troll Paellas information.
* Searching for Safety Online: Managing "Trolling" in a Feminist Forum
* Trolling for information: How to use trolling techniques in order to lure information (together with fravia's "Trolls and Schopenhauer" comparison).
* Phil's Field Guide to Trolls, a martial-arts oriented troll guide
[edit] Troll FAQs
* General, specific and fundamental trolling lore
* urban75 Trolling FAQ: Comprehensive guide to the dark art of trolling
* alt.troll FAQ (how-to)
* alt.syntax.tactical FAQ
* False repentance at MeatballWiki
* The relationship between social context cues and uninhibited verbal behavior in computer-mediated communication
* Moral panic and alternative identity construction in Usenet
* Troll entry in the Jargon File
* Plonk in Ursine's Jargon Wiki
* Giveen's Guide To Internet Trolls
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29"
Categories: Articles which may contain original research | People | Internet culture | Internet terminology | Internet forum terminology | Internet trolling | Popular psychology | Inte
miriam:yh_flower
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Why Jesus Has More Brides Than Dracula
On the rights of ancient women:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... 6&letter=W
JewishEncyclopedia.com - WOMAN, RIGHTS OF:
Shalom
Ted:-6
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... 6&letter=W
JewishEncyclopedia.com - WOMAN, RIGHTS OF:
Shalom
Ted:-6
Why Jesus Has More Brides Than Dracula
Further to ancient women's rights:
...there is enough evidence in the form of court documents and legal correspondence to show that, in theory at least, the men and women within each social class stood as equals in the eyes of the law. This equality gave the Dynastic Egyptian woman, married or single, the right to inherit, purchase and sell property and slaves as she wished. She was able to make a valid legal contract, borrow or lend goods, and even initiate a court case. Perhaps most importantly of all, she was allowed to live alone without the protection of a male guardian. This was a startling innovation at a time when the female members of all other major civilizations were to a greater or lesser extent relegated to a subordinate status and ranked with dependent children and the mentally disturbed as being naturally inferior to males. The contemporary written laws of Mesopotamia and the later laws of Greece and Rome all enshrined the principle of male superiority, so that the regulation of female behaviour by males was seen as a normal and natural part of daily life throughout most of the ancient world.(49) From the site below.
http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/DEPT/RA/OBRIE ... _TEXT.HTML
Alexandra O'Brien, PHD proposal, Egyptian women in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt, papyrology, Egypt, Demotic, Greek, Roman, Greco-Roman, Graeco-Roman, Hellenistic, Ptolemaic and post-Pharaonic Egypt, and Egyptian language material, scans of papyri, social history, gender, economics
Shalom
Ted:-6
...there is enough evidence in the form of court documents and legal correspondence to show that, in theory at least, the men and women within each social class stood as equals in the eyes of the law. This equality gave the Dynastic Egyptian woman, married or single, the right to inherit, purchase and sell property and slaves as she wished. She was able to make a valid legal contract, borrow or lend goods, and even initiate a court case. Perhaps most importantly of all, she was allowed to live alone without the protection of a male guardian. This was a startling innovation at a time when the female members of all other major civilizations were to a greater or lesser extent relegated to a subordinate status and ranked with dependent children and the mentally disturbed as being naturally inferior to males. The contemporary written laws of Mesopotamia and the later laws of Greece and Rome all enshrined the principle of male superiority, so that the regulation of female behaviour by males was seen as a normal and natural part of daily life throughout most of the ancient world.(49) From the site below.
http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/DEPT/RA/OBRIE ... _TEXT.HTML
Alexandra O'Brien, PHD proposal, Egyptian women in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt, papyrology, Egypt, Demotic, Greek, Roman, Greco-Roman, Graeco-Roman, Hellenistic, Ptolemaic and post-Pharaonic Egypt, and Egyptian language material, scans of papyri, social history, gender, economics
Shalom
Ted:-6
Why Jesus Has More Brides Than Dracula
A very good site for the study of Jesus is to be found:
http://www.westarinstitute.org/Jesus_Se ... minar.html
Jesus Seminar Description
Shalom
Ted:-6
http://www.westarinstitute.org/Jesus_Se ... minar.html
Jesus Seminar Description
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Why Jesus Has More Brides Than Dracula
Glaswegian;469796 wrote: In my view, the ontological status of Jesus is no different from that of, say, 'Merlin' or 'Walter Mitty' or 'The Boy Who Cried Wolf'. That is, he exists only within the context of a work of fiction - in this case, The New Testament.
Since Jesus is a completely fictitious character, since he is no more real than, say, Apollo or Horus, since he is only a myth, then this means, of course, that he is no divine Saviour. And therefore no salvation through Jesus is possible for the Christian. This is why it is unbearable for many Christians even to entertain the possibility that Jesus as 'divine Saviour' is a myth. The Christian who has believed in this myth for years - for a whole lifetime in countless cases - has invested so much of himself in it, so much mental and emotional energy in the form of sentiments, feelings, wishes, hopes, dreams, yearnings, longings, etc. that he is under enormous psychological pressure from within to keep believing it. Can you imagine a Christian who has given so much of his being over to this myth having to admit that this was done in vain, that the sacrifice he has made of himself to it was for absolutely nothing, and that he was a complete fool for believing in it for a single moment? Such an admission would be wholly intolerable to him. Therefore, he is compelled to keep believing in the myth. Yes, better for him to keep doing that than for him to suffer the pain and personal humiliation that would result from recognising Jesus's Saviourhood for what it is - viz. a myth manufactured centuries ago by the Church and certain Jews with a political agenda.
But there is a further reason why the Christian is driven to believe in the myth of Jesus as divine Saviour. Christians provide this myth with monstrous new life from one generation to the next because it is rooted in something appalling which lies at the core of their being. And the appalling thing which lies there is this - A big thumb-sucking infant who is terrified of existence and death, and who will cling desperately to anything for succour no matter how absurd and risible that thing may be. Yes, even something as absurd and risible as the myth of Jesus as divine Saviour.
I don't know about you but sometimes when my eyes meet the eyes of an animal, say a dog, I find myself lowering mine in shame. Do you know why? Because within the unfathomable depths of the creature's gaze there is something accusatory, something which seems to say: 'How ridiculous you humans are! How utterly preposterous you appear to us animals! Why do you require all those religious illusions in order to live? What nonsense! Why can't you be like us? Why are you unable just to live!'
Is it any wonder then that the animals find us humans endlessly amusing? Is it any wonder that some of them are laughing their heads off at us? And you thought they were just shrieking and yelping. No. Listen more deeply to them....
Since Jesus is a completely fictitious character, since he is no more real than, say, Apollo or Horus, since he is only a myth, then this means, of course, that he is no divine Saviour. And therefore no salvation through Jesus is possible for the Christian. This is why it is unbearable for many Christians even to entertain the possibility that Jesus as 'divine Saviour' is a myth. The Christian who has believed in this myth for years - for a whole lifetime in countless cases - has invested so much of himself in it, so much mental and emotional energy in the form of sentiments, feelings, wishes, hopes, dreams, yearnings, longings, etc. that he is under enormous psychological pressure from within to keep believing it. Can you imagine a Christian who has given so much of his being over to this myth having to admit that this was done in vain, that the sacrifice he has made of himself to it was for absolutely nothing, and that he was a complete fool for believing in it for a single moment? Such an admission would be wholly intolerable to him. Therefore, he is compelled to keep believing in the myth. Yes, better for him to keep doing that than for him to suffer the pain and personal humiliation that would result from recognising Jesus's Saviourhood for what it is - viz. a myth manufactured centuries ago by the Church and certain Jews with a political agenda.
But there is a further reason why the Christian is driven to believe in the myth of Jesus as divine Saviour. Christians provide this myth with monstrous new life from one generation to the next because it is rooted in something appalling which lies at the core of their being. And the appalling thing which lies there is this - A big thumb-sucking infant who is terrified of existence and death, and who will cling desperately to anything for succour no matter how absurd and risible that thing may be. Yes, even something as absurd and risible as the myth of Jesus as divine Saviour.
I don't know about you but sometimes when my eyes meet the eyes of an animal, say a dog, I find myself lowering mine in shame. Do you know why? Because within the unfathomable depths of the creature's gaze there is something accusatory, something which seems to say: 'How ridiculous you humans are! How utterly preposterous you appear to us animals! Why do you require all those religious illusions in order to live? What nonsense! Why can't you be like us? Why are you unable just to live!'
Is it any wonder then that the animals find us humans endlessly amusing? Is it any wonder that some of them are laughing their heads off at us? And you thought they were just shrieking and yelping. No. Listen more deeply to them....
Why Jesus Has More Brides Than Dracula
Pinky;471518 wrote: You have to get up FAR too early
I read that the wrong way, and thought for a moment I was in another place!!!
Being a Bride of Dracula:
Fors:
If it's Richard Roxburg.... pant pant pant
:sneaky:
I read that the wrong way, and thought for a moment I was in another place!!!
Being a Bride of Dracula:
Fors:
If it's Richard Roxburg.... pant pant pant
:sneaky:
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"
Why Jesus Has More Brides Than Dracula
Glaswegian;471194 wrote:
I don't know about you but sometimes when my eyes meet the eyes of an animal, say a dog, I find myself lowering mine in shame. Do you know why? Because within the unfathomable depths of the creature's gaze there is something accusatory, something which seems to say: How ridiculous you humans are! How utterly preposterous you appear to us animals!
Troll (Internet)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Internet troll)
Jump to: navigation, search
This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims.
Please help Wikipedia by adding references. See the talk page for details.
For other uses of the word, see Troll (disambiguation).
In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who enters an established community such as an online discussion forum and intentionally tries to cause disruption, most often in the form of posting inflammatory, off-topic, insulting, or otherwise inappropriate messages.
Contents
[hide]
this describes you very well. No wonder the dogs look at you that way.
I don't know about you but sometimes when my eyes meet the eyes of an animal, say a dog, I find myself lowering mine in shame. Do you know why? Because within the unfathomable depths of the creature's gaze there is something accusatory, something which seems to say: How ridiculous you humans are! How utterly preposterous you appear to us animals!
Troll (Internet)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Internet troll)
Jump to: navigation, search
This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims.
Please help Wikipedia by adding references. See the talk page for details.
For other uses of the word, see Troll (disambiguation).
In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who enters an established community such as an online discussion forum and intentionally tries to cause disruption, most often in the form of posting inflammatory, off-topic, insulting, or otherwise inappropriate messages.
Contents
[hide]
this describes you very well. No wonder the dogs look at you that way.
miriam:yh_flower
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Why Jesus Has More Brides Than Dracula
Pinky wrote: You have to get up Far too early
AussiePam;471550 wrote: I read that the wrong way
In what way did you read it, Aussie Pam?
AussiePam;471550 wrote: I read that the wrong way
In what way did you read it, Aussie Pam?
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Why Jesus Has More Brides Than Dracula
Even the person who has only sampled a few of the mystical writings associated with the major world religions must be struck by the extent to which erotic language and imagery abound in them. As the psychiatrist J. A. C. Brown writes:
'Many have noticed the common use in devotional works of sexual symbolism and the tendency to express religious feeling in erotic imagery even to the extent of describing what, in another context, would be taken as an account of sexual orgasm.'
This is the view of Psychiatry. But in case you think it exclusive to mental health professionals the very same view of mysticism is expressed by the renowned religious scholar and former Dean of Emmanuel College Cambridge - Don Cupitt - in his book Mysticism After Modernity. Cupitt writes:
'Everyone knows that both in India and in the West spiritual writing makes extensive use of erotic imagery...the eroticism of wounds, of thraldom, bondage, and ravishment...The language in which mysticism and religious experience are written about is to a very great degree not just erotic, but female erotic: that is, steeped in watery imagery expressing both our feelings for Woman, and the sexual pleasure of Woman.'
In his book Cupitt discusses erotic mystical writing drawn from a wide variety of religious sources. The following are just a few examples for you to consider:
Here is St. Jerome telling female Christian penitents what they will feel when the Bridegroom comes to them in the night. Christ will slip in
'and will touch your belly; and you will start up all trembling, and will cry: "I am wounded with love".
While St. Bernard tells the Christian believer:
'having arrived at that nakedness where the naked reality of God can enter, the soul is fertilized into divine life'
The same saint urges the Christian seeker of God to learn:
'ever greater openness to the pressure of God's love'
And he compares the union of self and God with:
'the mixing of water in wine'
And here are two examples of erotic mystical writing from the Hindu tradition. The medieval female poet-saint Mahadevi gushes:
'You (Shiva) are like milk
In water...'
And...
'He (Shiva) battered my heart,
Looted my flesh,
Claimed as tribute my pleasure,
Took over all of me'
In the light of the foregoing it can be said that what we witness in mystical experience is the human sex instinct after it has undergone highly elaborate forms of sublimation. This instinct becomes transformed out of all recognition in the mind of the mystic, which is to say, it becomes transformed into 'spiritual feeling'. But in spite of this process of psychic refinement the true aetiology of mystical experience is revealed in a range of erotic words and images - such as those contained in the above examples of mystical writing. Mysticism is at bottom, then, a form of eroticism: more precisely, it is transmuted or disguised auto-eroticism. This is because the 'union' achieved in mysticism is not a union with God but a union with one's self. As the man in the street might put it - The union with one's self in mysticism, the communing with one's self, the entering deeply into one's self, is really a form of self-shagging without any naughty fluids or stains to clean up.
'Many have noticed the common use in devotional works of sexual symbolism and the tendency to express religious feeling in erotic imagery even to the extent of describing what, in another context, would be taken as an account of sexual orgasm.'
This is the view of Psychiatry. But in case you think it exclusive to mental health professionals the very same view of mysticism is expressed by the renowned religious scholar and former Dean of Emmanuel College Cambridge - Don Cupitt - in his book Mysticism After Modernity. Cupitt writes:
'Everyone knows that both in India and in the West spiritual writing makes extensive use of erotic imagery...the eroticism of wounds, of thraldom, bondage, and ravishment...The language in which mysticism and religious experience are written about is to a very great degree not just erotic, but female erotic: that is, steeped in watery imagery expressing both our feelings for Woman, and the sexual pleasure of Woman.'
In his book Cupitt discusses erotic mystical writing drawn from a wide variety of religious sources. The following are just a few examples for you to consider:
Here is St. Jerome telling female Christian penitents what they will feel when the Bridegroom comes to them in the night. Christ will slip in
'and will touch your belly; and you will start up all trembling, and will cry: "I am wounded with love".
While St. Bernard tells the Christian believer:
'having arrived at that nakedness where the naked reality of God can enter, the soul is fertilized into divine life'
The same saint urges the Christian seeker of God to learn:
'ever greater openness to the pressure of God's love'
And he compares the union of self and God with:
'the mixing of water in wine'
And here are two examples of erotic mystical writing from the Hindu tradition. The medieval female poet-saint Mahadevi gushes:
'You (Shiva) are like milk
In water...'
And...
'He (Shiva) battered my heart,
Looted my flesh,
Claimed as tribute my pleasure,
Took over all of me'
In the light of the foregoing it can be said that what we witness in mystical experience is the human sex instinct after it has undergone highly elaborate forms of sublimation. This instinct becomes transformed out of all recognition in the mind of the mystic, which is to say, it becomes transformed into 'spiritual feeling'. But in spite of this process of psychic refinement the true aetiology of mystical experience is revealed in a range of erotic words and images - such as those contained in the above examples of mystical writing. Mysticism is at bottom, then, a form of eroticism: more precisely, it is transmuted or disguised auto-eroticism. This is because the 'union' achieved in mysticism is not a union with God but a union with one's self. As the man in the street might put it - The union with one's self in mysticism, the communing with one's self, the entering deeply into one's self, is really a form of self-shagging without any naughty fluids or stains to clean up.
Why Jesus Has More Brides Than Dracula
Many believe that the 'Glaswegian' accent has a rather pugnacious, Rottweiler-like tone. But the Glaswegians' are really a lovely, pleasant bunch, who are simply misunderstood. So forget Linguaphone, evening classes, or your local reputable bookstore. By mastering the following frequently used words and phrases, you'll be able to converse like a true Glaswegian, and possibly drink like one too! Translations are provided to help you:
'Awright Mucker hows it gawn?'
(Good day to you Sir, how are you?)
learn to speak fluent Weegie within days!
Many believe that the 'Glaswegian' accent has a rather pugnacious, Rottweiler-like tone. But the Glaswegians' are really a lovely, pleasant bunch, who are simply misunderstood. So forget Linguaphone, evening classes, or your local reputable bookstore. By mastering the following frequently used words and phrases, you'll be able to converse like a true Glaswegian, and possibly drink like one too! Translations are provided to help you:
'Awright Mucker hows it gawn?'
(Good day to you Sir, how are you?)
If this is you being nice, I would hate to be around you when you were being nasty.
'Awright Mucker hows it gawn?'
(Good day to you Sir, how are you?)
learn to speak fluent Weegie within days!
Many believe that the 'Glaswegian' accent has a rather pugnacious, Rottweiler-like tone. But the Glaswegians' are really a lovely, pleasant bunch, who are simply misunderstood. So forget Linguaphone, evening classes, or your local reputable bookstore. By mastering the following frequently used words and phrases, you'll be able to converse like a true Glaswegian, and possibly drink like one too! Translations are provided to help you:
'Awright Mucker hows it gawn?'
(Good day to you Sir, how are you?)
If this is you being nice, I would hate to be around you when you were being nasty.
miriam:yh_flower
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Why Jesus Has More Brides Than Dracula
weber;472315 wrote: the Glaswegians' are really a lovely, pleasant bunch
You have divined us well, weber.
You have divined us well, weber.
Why Jesus Has More Brides Than Dracula
Glaswegian;472323 wrote: You have divined us well, weber.
Not me. I forgot to put the site. I find you like my highlighted in red Rotweiller. From what I can see, you go about disturbing as many people as you possibly can. But it's not working. There are people who think they are right and everyone else is wrong. You fit that bill and I have no respect for people like that. You and your name meaning as far as pleasant do not coincide at all. I have no idea what pleasure you get in trying to demean beliefs other than your own. I see you as top of the line sh$t disturber.
http://www.itchyglasgow.co.uk/articles/147.html
Not me. I forgot to put the site. I find you like my highlighted in red Rotweiller. From what I can see, you go about disturbing as many people as you possibly can. But it's not working. There are people who think they are right and everyone else is wrong. You fit that bill and I have no respect for people like that. You and your name meaning as far as pleasant do not coincide at all. I have no idea what pleasure you get in trying to demean beliefs other than your own. I see you as top of the line sh$t disturber.
http://www.itchyglasgow.co.uk/articles/147.html
miriam:yh_flower
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Why Jesus Has More Brides Than Dracula
weber:-6
Well put. I can go along with that.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Well put. I can go along with that.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Why Jesus Has More Brides Than Dracula
weber;472315 wrote: Many believe that the 'Glaswegian' accent has a rather pugnacious, Rottweiler-like tone.
weber wrote: I find you like my highlighted in red Rottweiler
The canine species has achieved an incalculably higher level of moral development than the Christian species. This is especially the case with regard to what we humans think of as the most important virtue - viz. love. In terms of its intrinsic moral worth, a dog's love is infinitely more valuable than a Christian's love. This is because a dog's love is always pure whereas a Christian's love is always tainted by selfishness. Thus, when a Christian does anything out of 'love' he always keeps one eye surreptitiously fixed on heaven because he is anxious to gauge how the 'good work' born of his 'love' appears to the all-powerful God up there who will ultimately judge his fate. In other words, the 'good work' which the Christian does out of 'love' is always done with a view to how it will reflect on his 'soul' and, therefore, on his personal salvation.
But the egotistical and mercenary considerations which enter into the Christian's calculations when he loves are completely absent in the dog. When a dog loves, it loves wholeheartedly: that is, its love is utterly sincere and is not adulterated by crass and selfish motives. Indeed, from our point of view, a dog's love is one of the highest forms of love because a dog is the only being that loves us more than we love ourselves. It is this quality of canine love which elevates the dog far above the Christian. No Christian has ever come close to matching it.
Sometimes during the horror of an intensely dark night or when life becomes even more unspeakably loathsome than usual I console myself with the following thought: That one day in the future - perhaps in a hundred years, or a thousand years, or ten thousand years - a Christian will be born whom nature has equipped with the inner resources and strength of character which will enable him or her to attain to the moral level of a dog. Who can say that such a thought is utterly incredible? Who can say that it is beyond all possibility of ever being realised? No one, of course. But what can be said with absolute certainty is that such a Christian would be unique among all the members of the Christian species who had ever appeared on the earth, so much so that this extraordinary individual would become the stuff of legend, and - who knows? - maybe even religions would be built around him or her....
weber wrote: I find you like my highlighted in red Rottweiler
The canine species has achieved an incalculably higher level of moral development than the Christian species. This is especially the case with regard to what we humans think of as the most important virtue - viz. love. In terms of its intrinsic moral worth, a dog's love is infinitely more valuable than a Christian's love. This is because a dog's love is always pure whereas a Christian's love is always tainted by selfishness. Thus, when a Christian does anything out of 'love' he always keeps one eye surreptitiously fixed on heaven because he is anxious to gauge how the 'good work' born of his 'love' appears to the all-powerful God up there who will ultimately judge his fate. In other words, the 'good work' which the Christian does out of 'love' is always done with a view to how it will reflect on his 'soul' and, therefore, on his personal salvation.
But the egotistical and mercenary considerations which enter into the Christian's calculations when he loves are completely absent in the dog. When a dog loves, it loves wholeheartedly: that is, its love is utterly sincere and is not adulterated by crass and selfish motives. Indeed, from our point of view, a dog's love is one of the highest forms of love because a dog is the only being that loves us more than we love ourselves. It is this quality of canine love which elevates the dog far above the Christian. No Christian has ever come close to matching it.
Sometimes during the horror of an intensely dark night or when life becomes even more unspeakably loathsome than usual I console myself with the following thought: That one day in the future - perhaps in a hundred years, or a thousand years, or ten thousand years - a Christian will be born whom nature has equipped with the inner resources and strength of character which will enable him or her to attain to the moral level of a dog. Who can say that such a thought is utterly incredible? Who can say that it is beyond all possibility of ever being realised? No one, of course. But what can be said with absolute certainty is that such a Christian would be unique among all the members of the Christian species who had ever appeared on the earth, so much so that this extraordinary individual would become the stuff of legend, and - who knows? - maybe even religions would be built around him or her....
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Why Jesus Has More Brides Than Dracula
Glaswegian;472539 wrote: The canine species has achieved an incalculably higher level of moral development than the Christian species. This is especially the case with regard to what we humans think of as the most important virtue - viz. love. In terms of its intrinsic moral worth, a dog's love is infinitely more valuable than a Christian's love. This is because a dog's love is always pure whereas a Christian's love is always tainted by selfishness. Thus, when a Christian does anything out of 'love' he always keeps one eye surreptitiously fixed on heaven because he is anxious to gauge how the 'good work' born of his 'love' appears to the all-powerful God up there who will ultimately judge his fate. In other words, the 'good work' which the Christian does out of 'love' is always done with a view to how it will reflect on his 'soul' and, therefore, on his personal salvation.[...]Ephesians 2:8-9 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith -- and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God -- not by works, so that no one can boast."
Glaswegian, you are an ill-educated, misinformed putz. I would be far more interested in the basis for your seething hatred of Christians, than in this poorly spun tripe.
Glaswegian, you are an ill-educated, misinformed putz. I would be far more interested in the basis for your seething hatred of Christians, than in this poorly spun tripe.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Why Jesus Has More Brides Than Dracula
Novelty;472650 wrote: All i see is a Culture eater, all they do is take what men and women have written then jumble it up and say this is the way, they think that they are creating culture but they are not...
As far as that goes, isn't that what any group or society does? Is there harm in that?
As far as that goes, isn't that what any group or society does? Is there harm in that?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Why Jesus Has More Brides Than Dracula
SnoozeControl;472668 wrote: Yeah, I'd say the way 'Christians' followed behind what they called heathen religions and turned the ceremonies and holidays around so they'd be portrayed as evil and demonic. I think there's a lot of harm in that.
Like the Easter Bunny, Christmas trees & the like? "The Church" which mean the Catholic church, except to Catholics (big C) bastardized alot of pagan traditions to attract more people. I don't like it any more than you, Snooze.
My comment was in the broad term of any culture taking what they see and hear, and interpreting it to suit their needs. I'd bet even the heathen religions did the same.
Like the Easter Bunny, Christmas trees & the like? "The Church" which mean the Catholic church, except to Catholics (big C) bastardized alot of pagan traditions to attract more people. I don't like it any more than you, Snooze.
My comment was in the broad term of any culture taking what they see and hear, and interpreting it to suit their needs. I'd bet even the heathen religions did the same.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Why Jesus Has More Brides Than Dracula
SnoozeControl;472693 wrote: American Indians spring to mind at your last post, Accountable. Their culture didn't survive too well. There are others I'm not educated enough to even mention. I suppose I could go on a googling expedition, but I have to get ready for work.
I'm not defending that in the least. Just don't mistakenly think it's unique ... or Christian. It was no more Christian then, than what our politicians today do is patriotic - no matter what they call it.
I'm not defending that in the least. Just don't mistakenly think it's unique ... or Christian. It was no more Christian then, than what our politicians today do is patriotic - no matter what they call it.
Why Jesus Has More Brides Than Dracula
Glaswegian;472539 wrote: The canine species has achieved an incalculably higher level of moral development than the Christian species. This is especially the case with regard to what we humans think of as the most important virtue - viz. love. In terms of its intrinsic moral worth, a dog's love is infinitely more valuable than a Christian's love. This is because a dog's love is always pure whereas a Christian's love is always tainted by selfishness. Thus, when a Christian does anything out of 'love' he always keeps one eye surreptitiously fixed on heaven because he is anxious to gauge how the 'good work' born of his 'love' appears to the all-powerful God up there who will ultimately judge his fate. In other words, the 'good work' which the Christian does out of 'love' is always done with a view to how it will reflect on his 'soul' and, therefore, on his personal salvation.
But the egotistical and mercenary considerations which enter into the Christian's calculations when he loves are completely absent in the dog. When a dog loves, it loves wholeheartedly: that is, its love is utterly sincere and is not adulterated by crass and selfish motives. Indeed, from our point of view, a dog's love is one of the highest forms of love because a dog is the only being that loves us more than we love ourselves. It is this quality of canine love which elevates the dog far above the Christian. No Christian has ever come close to matching it.
Sometimes during the horror of an intensely dark night or when life becomes even more unspeakably loathsome than usual I console myself with the following thought: That one day in the future - perhaps in a hundred years, or a thousand years, or ten thousand years - a Christian will be born whom nature has equipped with the inner resources and strength of character which will enable him or her to attain to the moral level of a dog. Who can say that such a thought is utterly incredible? Who can say that it is beyond all possibility of ever being realised? No one, of course. But what can be said with absolute certainty is that such a Christian would be unique among all the members of the Christian species who had ever appeared on the earth, so much so that this extraordinary individual would become the stuff of legend, and - who knows? - maybe even religions would be built around him or her....
and now it is you who is being anthropomorphic which I suppose makes you a hypocrite.
But the egotistical and mercenary considerations which enter into the Christian's calculations when he loves are completely absent in the dog. When a dog loves, it loves wholeheartedly: that is, its love is utterly sincere and is not adulterated by crass and selfish motives. Indeed, from our point of view, a dog's love is one of the highest forms of love because a dog is the only being that loves us more than we love ourselves. It is this quality of canine love which elevates the dog far above the Christian. No Christian has ever come close to matching it.
Sometimes during the horror of an intensely dark night or when life becomes even more unspeakably loathsome than usual I console myself with the following thought: That one day in the future - perhaps in a hundred years, or a thousand years, or ten thousand years - a Christian will be born whom nature has equipped with the inner resources and strength of character which will enable him or her to attain to the moral level of a dog. Who can say that such a thought is utterly incredible? Who can say that it is beyond all possibility of ever being realised? No one, of course. But what can be said with absolute certainty is that such a Christian would be unique among all the members of the Christian species who had ever appeared on the earth, so much so that this extraordinary individual would become the stuff of legend, and - who knows? - maybe even religions would be built around him or her....
and now it is you who is being anthropomorphic which I suppose makes you a hypocrite.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
Why Jesus Has More Brides Than Dracula
pompom;472774 wrote: "The canine species has achieved an incalculably higher level of moral development than the Christian species."
In Dog we trust?
OMG Dog spelled backwards is God!!!
In Dog we trust?
OMG Dog spelled backwards is God!!!
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Why Jesus Has More Brides Than Dracula
zinkyusa;472761 wrote: and now it is you who is being anthropomorphic which I suppose makes you a hypocrite.
Grrrr!;)
Grrrr!;)
Why Jesus Has More Brides Than Dracula
SnoozeControl;472693 wrote: American Indians spring to mind at your last post, Accountable. Their culture didn't survive too well. There are others I'm not educated enough to even mention. I suppose I could go on a googling expedition, but I have to get ready for work.
And by what basis do you consider yourself judge and jury? Are you not part of all that you describe as being not good, or whatever you said?? If you don't fix it, don't complain about it.
And by what basis do you consider yourself judge and jury? Are you not part of all that you describe as being not good, or whatever you said?? If you don't fix it, don't complain about it.
miriam:yh_flower
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Why Jesus Has More Brides Than Dracula
pompom;472774 wrote: In Dog we trust
Thank you, pompom, for reminding me of the prayer uttered by Jesus at Calvary when he saw a pooch lifting up its leg at the base of his cross.
Thank you, pompom, for reminding me of the prayer uttered by Jesus at Calvary when he saw a pooch lifting up its leg at the base of his cross.
Why Jesus Has More Brides Than Dracula
I withdraw that Snooze as I really don't know what you are talking about. I think I hear the expression "you Christians" or just "Christians" emphasized, and I think, "oh, oh here we go again". All my life I was quite satisfied to be Christian, actually Catholic, and all of a sudden, it's a dirty word or sounds like one.
miriam:yh_flower
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Why Jesus Has More Brides Than Dracula
Glaswegian;472802 wrote: Thank you, pompom, for reminding me of the prayer uttered by Jesus at Calvary when he saw a pooch lifting up its leg at the base of his cross.
You are so crude and disgusting with ugly words like that. Why don't you go to a forum that likes sick talk......I won't miss you and I am sure nobody here will miss your filthy talk.
You are so crude and disgusting with ugly words like that. Why don't you go to a forum that likes sick talk......I won't miss you and I am sure nobody here will miss your filthy talk.
miriam:yh_flower
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Why Jesus Has More Brides Than Dracula
weber;472808 wrote: Why don't you go to a forum that likes sick talk
What you call 'sick talk', weber, is called 'Gallows Humour' in Glasgow.
And I thought you were an expert on Glaswegians. You disappoint me, weber....
What you call 'sick talk', weber, is called 'Gallows Humour' in Glasgow.
And I thought you were an expert on Glaswegians. You disappoint me, weber....
Why Jesus Has More Brides Than Dracula
Glaswegian;472828 wrote: What you call 'sick talk', weber, is called 'Gallows Humour' in Glasgow.
And I thought you were an expert on Glaswegians. You disappoint me, weber....
I am no expert in Gaswegians. I associate Glaswegians now with people like you who pass around a pile of bad feelings, make people feel bad, say very unnice things about Christians and in general make people want to see you go. That is what you have done for Glaswegians. I simply looked it up to see how well you portrayed your namesakes and you completely destroy anything good about them. You are not your name at all. You really should find something more suitable to your horrid outlook.
And I thought you were an expert on Glaswegians. You disappoint me, weber....
I am no expert in Gaswegians. I associate Glaswegians now with people like you who pass around a pile of bad feelings, make people feel bad, say very unnice things about Christians and in general make people want to see you go. That is what you have done for Glaswegians. I simply looked it up to see how well you portrayed your namesakes and you completely destroy anything good about them. You are not your name at all. You really should find something more suitable to your horrid outlook.
miriam:yh_flower
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Why Jesus Has More Brides Than Dracula
weber;472862 wrote: You are not your name at all. You really should find something more suitable to your horrid outlook.
In that case how about....
Son of Weber....?
In that case how about....
Son of Weber....?