Did I Quote Mine Marcus Borg?

[Sea of red]

Nope. I created the poll to settle the matter about whether or not I had committed a quote mine. I was hoping that if the vote went my way, you and the others who asserted it was a quote mine would maybe rethink your position. I should have predicted that pride wasn't going to allow you to do that, and that instead, you were going to dig in, make a series of contradictory statements in order to maintain your position, and blame the rest of the forum for dishonestly colluding with me against you. If I'm at fault for anything here it's that I gave you more credit than you deserved.

Also, you hold some bizarre views over how concerned you think I should be about who regards me. That's never been my motivation for posting on this forum. Ever. I'm not here for some sort of popularity contest. If people appreciate my posts, great. If they don't, oh well. This has been explained to you more than once already. I don't know if you've just never really followed along, or what, but I've certainly ruffled more feathers among the Christians on this forum than I have nontheists over the years. Talking about projection, this sounds like something that's far more important to you than me. That you "don't get no respect" seems like one of the main reasons you flounce from the forum every few months.



I provided plenty of context, and I left links for anyone who desired to read the rest of the article to do just that. I couldn't have handled it better, and I have absolutely nothing to be sorry about.

Adrift, I've apologized and retracted statements plenty of times, even to people I don't necessarily get along with very well. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong - whether I like the person or not. I've certainly got my own flaws in the way I carry myself (which you constantly bring up as if you have none yourself) but I won't apologize for being human.

This WAS a quote mine, plain as day to me, and to more than a few other people as well. I believe you knew exactly what you were doing, and you did it intentionally. You are obviously concerned about a popularity contest, or you wouldn't have been so insecure as to make this silly thread we both knew was in your favor before even began. Seriously, if I went to a secular forum and showed these posts, how do think the results would end in if I made a poll? They'd have a bias towards me obviously. You've done this stuff before where you say "lets put such and such to a vote!" so I think you DO care about popularity, and you obviously can't defend your actions yourself very well. It's actually painful to watch you use such low tactics.

But if you are so concerned about a poll and outside opinion, then let me make this proposition: find a philosophy forum and post the conversations there. There won't be any bias towards either of us, and I'm sure many philosophy grads will be happy to give their opinion. Make a similar poll and lets see the results. If it goes your way, I'll sincerely eat my words and concede that I'm mistaken in my understanding of what it means to quote mine. It can't get anymore more neutral and fair than that. But my hunch is you won't have the guts to do that because you know in all likelihood, they'll find the quote to be disingenuous too.

It didn't have to go this far, but you've pushed the issue.

[Sea of red]

First of all, Tassman did accuse me of quote mining,



But where in the OP did I say that Tassman was the one who accused me of quote mining? What I said in the OP was, "I'm being accused of quote mining the article..." I didn't say who accused me of quote mining because several people had accused me of doing so. It didn't seem necessary to list each name of each person who made the accusation. I certainly didn't fail to mention you because I didn't think you were unpopular enough. You got issues bro.

You only quoted Tassman because you knew the second everybody saw his name they'd side with you because they can't stand him - Carr basically said the same thing too, bro.

[Meh Gerbil]

I hate that Tassman guy.

[One Bad Pig]

You only quoted Tassman because you knew the second everybody saw his name they'd side with you because they can't stand him - Carr basically said the same thing too, bro.

You might want to stop with the armchair psychology. You're not very good at it. If Adrift thought that, which is doubtful, he'd be wrong. As far as I can tell, Adrift is not one who's eager to suck up to the cool kids (it's sort of obvious that he and JP Holding don't get along). And I can't speak for anybody else, but there are occasions when somebody I can't stand is correct about something - blind squirrels, and all that.

[One Bad Pig]

I hate that Tassman guy.

You hate everybody.

[Adrift]

Adrift, I've apologized and retracted statements plenty of times, even to people I don't necessarily get along with very well. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong - whether I like the person or not. I've certainly got my own flaws in the way I carry myself (which you constantly bring up as if you have none yourself) but I won't apologize for being human.

This WAS a quote mine, plain as day to me, and to more than a few other people as well. I believe you knew exactly what you were doing, and you did it intentionally. You are obviously concerned about a popularity contest, or you wouldn't have been so insecure as to make this silly thread we both knew was in your favor before even began. Seriously, if I went to a secular forum and showed these posts, how do think the results would end in if I made a poll? They'd have a bias towards me obviously. You've done this stuff before where you say "lets put such and such to a vote!" so I think you DO care about popularity, and you obviously can't defend your actions yourself very well. It's actually painful to watch you use such low tactics.

But if you are so concerned about a poll and outside opinion, then let me make this proposition: find a philosophy forum and post the conversations there. There won't be any bias towards either of us, and I'm sure many philosophy grads will be happy to give their opinion. Make a similar poll and lets see the results. If it goes your way, I'll sincerely eat my words and concede that I'm mistaken in my understanding of what it means to quote mine. It can't get anymore more neutral and fair than that. But my hunch is you won't have the guts to do that because you know in all likelihood, they'll find the quote to be disingenuous too.

It didn't have to go this far, but you've pushed the issue.

It wasn't a quote mine as a majority of others in this thread, and the number of votes in the poll appear to support. No, unlike you, I am not worried about my popularity, and I explained why I posted the poll. I'm absolutely confident that I've defended my actions reasonably well, and I'm not terribly concerned that it brings you pain to think otherwise.

If the conversation were happening on any other forum, secular or otherwise, I'd like to think that the other posters had enough integrity to offer an honest assessment. Unlike you, I don't think so little of the majority of posters on this forum. They have their own minds, their own views about a wide variety of things. We don't always see eye to eye, and there have been plenty of times when they've called me out when they thought I was wrong, and I, them.

I will not conduct a poll on some other forum about this issue, not out of fear of being considered disingenuous, but because the entire notion of posting on another forum to prove a point is absolutely ludicrous. Sea, this is silly and desperate even for you. Own up to the fact that you were wrong about this being a quote mine, and move on, or just put me on ignore if it bugs you that much.

[Adrift]

You might want to stop with the armchair psychology. You're not very good at it. If Adrift thought that, which is doubtful, he'd be wrong. As far as I can tell, Adrift is not one who's eager to suck up to the cool kids (it's sort of obvious that he and JP Holding don't get along). And I can't speak for anybody else, but there are occasions when somebody I can't stand is correct about something - blind squirrels, and all that.

Yep. The last thing I was doing while creating the OP was attempting some Machiavellian level strategy by throwing Tassman under the bus rather than Sea of Red. This sort of goofy accusation says more about what's turning in Sea's head than it does in mine.

[Sea of red]

It wasn't a quote mine as a majority of others in this thread, and the number of votes in the poll appear to support. No, unlike you, I am not worried about my popularity, and I explained why I posted the poll. I'm absolutely confident that I've defended my actions reasonably well, and I'm not terribly concerned that it brings you pain to think otherwise.

If the conversation were happening on any other forum, secular or otherwise, I'd like to think that the other posters had enough integrity to offer an honest assessment. Unlike you, I don't think so little of the majority of posters on this forum. They have their own minds, their own views about a wide variety of things. We don't always see eye to eye, and there have been plenty of times when they've called me out when they thought I was wrong, and I, them.

I will not conduct a poll on some other forum about this issue, not out of fear of being considered disingenuous, but because the entire notion of posting on another forum to prove a point is absolutely ludicrous. Sea, this is silly and desperate even for you. Own up to the fact that you were wrong about this being a quote mine, and move on, or just put me on ignore if it bugs you that much.

I'll take that as a "no, I won't take you up on your offer, because I know they'll say it was a quote mine" and happily put you ignore.

You resorted to this "ludicrous", insecure, immature way of settling an issue, not me.

[Roy]

Nope. I created the poll to settle the matter about whether or not I had committed a quote mine.

You think a divided popular poll determines matters of fact?

I was hoping that if the vote went my way, you and the others who asserted it was a quote mine would maybe rethink your position.

I might change my position based on facts or evidence or convincing arguments. I'm not going to do it based on an opinion poll.

[Zymologist]

Yep. The last thing I was doing while creating the OP was attempting some Machiavellian level strategy by throwing Tassman under the bus rather than Sea of Red. This sort of goofy accusation says more about what's turning in Sea's head than it does in mine.

I figured you mentioned Tassman because his post was the thing you were originally responding to. I never thought of it as some kind of humiliation ploy.

There's a lot of presumption of motives in this thread. I really don't get it. I don't think it was a quote mine, and that's not because I'm a dishonest loser who will side with a Christian over an atheist, all day every day. People need to chill.

[Adrift]

You think a divided popular poll determines matters of fact?

Not at all. My hope was that on an issue like how a post is read on a forum, a majority consensus from other readers, one way or the other, would have a reasonable individual do at least a double think on the matter. I know that on my behalf, had the majority come down against me, at the very least I would have reconsidered how well I communicated what I intended to communicate.

I might change my position based on facts or evidence or convincing arguments. I'm not going to do it based on an opinion poll.

I believe I've offered plenty of facts and evidence to show that I did not commit a quote mine fallacy. In fact, I think I presented those reasonably well in the other thread, and I think others have done so in this thread as well. But when we're dealing with something as informal as how one is read on a public forum, and not something like "what do the facts and evidence say about global warming", or "what do the facts and evidence say about the existence of Jesus", or what have you, then it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to go to other people on the forum, and gauge their impression. I'd like to think that if I thought someone were committing a fallacy, but most people who also read the same person concluded that they were not committing a fallacy, then I might have the good sense to have another think about the issue.

[Carrikature]

Ad popular isn't a relevant issue when talking standard word usage. Words mean what people use them for.

Fwiw,

Guacamole

Except standard word usage is not all that's being discussed. Otherwise, I'd agree.

[Carrikature]

Yes, he denies miracles in the sense of 'nature miracles' but affirms miracles in the sense of 'spectacular deeds' of a palatable type.
In the context of the discussion; however, Tassman would have been denying both types in their entirety.

I think it was fair to use the quote given Tassman's general denial in that Adrift responded in general terms.
To parse it to the extent it has been parsed in this thread seems like a witch hunt.

This is part of the reason why I don't discuss this stuff as much as I once did.
There is no honesty left on these forums.

I haven't voted for a reason. I think it could have been done better but I don't see the blatant dishonesty inherent in quote mining. Meh.

[guacamole]

Except standard word usage is not all that's being discussed. Otherwise, I'd agree.

Standard usage is definitely being discussed here. Healings, exorcisms, and levitation are clearly, in his words, "paranormal" events. That's what I meant about call a spade a spade. It's not ad populam to point out circumlocution.

fwiw,
guacamole

[Carrikature]

Yep. The last thing I was doing while creating the OP was attempting some Machiavellian level strategy by throwing Tassman under the bus rather than Sea of Red. This sort of goofy accusation says more about what's turning in Sea's head than it does in mine.

I don't understand why your OP is an attack on Tassman when the question was raised by SoR in the thread being referenced. I don't know that it's some strategy, but something doesn't jive.