- This topic has 50 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Would it be the same ‘logic’ YOU used to conclude that the bible == science?
Emphasis is mine.
Wow. You are really losing it. You must have me confused with one of your other ‘dissenters’. I know it makes it easier for you to just group us all together into one big happy stereotype, but you are mistaken. I’ve never made such a point, conclusion, or argument.
But I understand in may sometimes get confusing for you, trying to keep track of all us ignorant unenlightened types.
I forgive you.
Do you mean ‘how’ or do you mean ‘why’? You ask ‘how?’, you answer ‘why?’
I asked how, and got nothing. How do you guys plan on going about this process of removing Swofford? What is the process for removal of a conference commissioner?
I asked how, and got nothing.
“How” is a completely different question, indeed. Probably got nothing because no one expects it to happen, or sees a likely scenario that leads to Swofford no longer being ACC Commish, other than his voluntary retirement, that is.
Hope, want, and desire. Yes, but admittedly, probably nothing more than just fantasy board talk. This is a place to vent, so we vent about perceived injustices and the world’s ills. But they did bring back Twinkies, so there’s one victory.
But directly to your question,
How do you guys plan on going about this process of removing Swofford? What is the process for removal of a conference commissioner?
I don’t think anyone here is planning, just bemoaning. I know nothing of the specifics of the process for removing the ACC commissioner (they might be in those bylaws somewhere), but I assume (maybe incorrectly) it would require a stated majority of schools to vote to remove him, and that such a removal would require legal cause, as defined within the contractual agreement. But that’s all presumption and assumption.
Still doesn’t mean we can’t whine, bitch, and moan about what we perceive to be a bias application of policy and rule enforcement. But your point is well taken.
That’s all I am getting at, foose. I’d like to know the process. I’m guessing it would have to be a majority vote of the university presidents, but who knows.
I just think though with the cash coming in, good schools willingly joining, and the future bright that it would be a tall order. And of course there are two schools very happy with who is in charge.
^^^ Or perhaps, simply not renewing an expired contract. I have a few friends and relatives in the college sports world. I’ll ask what the typical standard is next time we speak.
By the way… ya’ll heard, Coach Rat got a little dizzy on the bench last night watching while those Baptists wrought righteous indignation on his kids… I know everybody at SFN…joins me in hoping whatever caused that was truly the Deacs fault…
I hear Wojo picked up the loss ala Gaudett
So there’s no confusion, I’ll spell it out for you, I wouldn’t want you to misunderstand. YES, I just called you a name. With apologies to Rick, I’ll take my well earned warning and stop the name calling there.
Foos,
As much as I am enjoying the beat down I cannot let you call people names. I will start deleting next time I see it.I asked how, and got nothing. How do you guys plan on going about this process of removing Swofford? What is the process for removal of a conference commissioner?
I did not realize having a plan to fix the problem was a requirement of discussing it. Do you apply that to all discussions on this site?
Here is what the ACC Bylaws say:
There shall be a Commissioner who shall be elected by a vote of three-fourths of the Council of Presidents at any regular or special meeting. The Commissioner shall serve as the chief administrative officer of the Conference and shall be responsible to the Executive Committee. The Commissioner shall ensure adherence to the principles of the Constitution and Bylaws by all members of the Conference.
The Commissioner shall perform such duties as are prescribed in the Bylaws and such other duties as may be prescribed by the Executive Committee. The Commissioner shall have the powers necessary for the effective performance of the Commissioner’s duties.The Commissioner shall be paid a salary to be determined by the Conference. The term of the contract, including fringe benefits, shall be recommended by the Executive Committee and approved by two-thirds of the members of the Council of Presidents.
I will start deleting next time I see it.
Too late, I already did.
I am glad you said so. Everytime something gets deleted I get blamed 😉
I did not realize having a plan to fix the problem was a requirement of discussing it. Do you apply that to all discussions on this site?
Just pointing out that it is going to take a lot more than an unhappy NC State fanbase to get anything done. Start with Yow, hope she sees it the same way, and perhaps she will take it up the chain. Then try to build broad support among the member institutions. That is the only way. But something tells me most of them are happy, but I could be wrong.
Foos,
As much as I am enjoying the beat down I cannot let you call people names. I will start deleting next time I see it.No problem. Understood. As you saw, I called myself out in the post, and expected such. I even sent you all an email to give you a heads up. Even though names can at times be well earned, I understand (and agree with) the proper place, time, and forum thing.
But in my defense (an explanation, not an excuse) I do believe in a ‘special place’ for those who purposely use religion to inflame and troll. That is what ‘set me off’. And even in that, he couldn’t get it right. He had me confused with someone else.
Random – is there a post ‘preview’ functionality that could be implemented? One that would allow us to view our posts as they would appear in the forum, without actually posting them and starting the edit window clock?
No problem. Understood. As you saw, I called myself out in the post, and expected such. I even sent you all an email to give you a heads up. Even though names can at times be well earned, I understand (and agree with) the proper place, time, and forum thing.
But in my defense (an explanation, not an excuse) I do believe in a ‘special place’ for those who purposely use religion to inflame and troll. That is what ‘set me off’. And even in that, he couldn’t get it right. He had me confused with someone else.
That’s right, I just made it all up.
Anthropomorphic global warming is the wacky faith based religion of the left, so I guess a Jesus reference isn’t completely out of place.
That some of you support the EPA regulating CO2 as a toxin is about on par with thinking Jesus will save us from global warming.
Oh no wait not I didn’t.
And yet, despite all of your claims to the contrary, you have’t addressed why I’m wrong in any substantive way. Saying you’re correct in calling my view a logical fallacy because it’s a logical fallacy is circular reasoning.
Actually, that new fallacy you’re using is called “Begging the question”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_questionI know you’re have absolute certainty of your correctness and my complete inability to understand your greatness. I’ve asked you try to explain your ‘logic’ in simple steps so that my tiny caveman brain can comprehend what you’re talking about. Instead, I got a spittle flecked rant with circular reasoning.
Why do you even bother responding if you won’t say anything that moves the conversation along? What purpose does it serve for you to come along and troll my posts other than to stroke your own sense of smug superiority? Why do you then completely freak out when I dare question your vast intellect?
Hahaha… wow.
That some of you support the EPA regulating CO2 as a toxin is about on par with thinking Jesus will save us from global warming.
If you read that with a little more attention, or not purposely try to distort its meaning, you’d understand I’m stating that both of those notions are ridiculous.
That’s right, I just made it all up.
So, yes, you did, or confused (either unintentionally, or not) me with Mike.
What is really rich is that the second half of my statement:
…thinking Jesus will save us from global warming
Was a paraphrase of this mocking comment YOU had made earlier to the above referenced Mike.
Do you seriously think Jesus is going to save us from climate change?
But again, I apologize. I am now starting to realize a few things. I have an extreme patience threshold for the elderly, animals, little kids, and those with special needs.
You just tickle me…
Even if you misread (purposely or not),
That some of you support the EPA regulating CO2 as a toxin is about on par with thinking Jesus will save us from global warming.
How do you get that to mean “bible == science?”
Nevermind.
Patience.
PS: Wait wait wait… Just in case you misunderstood the quoted statement:
CO2 is necessary for life. It is NOT a toxin. Atmospheric levels of CO2 are not directly proportional to temperature. It’s not that simple. The earth has had ice ages with multiple times the amount of CO2 that is currently in the atmosphere.
But even if atmospheric levels of CO2 were directly proportional to temperature, humans are naturally a warm weather species. We tend to do better when it’s warm. Humans began moving away from the equator only after technological advances (clothing, shelter, hunting tools, etc) that protected them from the elements and allowed them to survive in colder climates.
If you want to argue any of the statements in the above two paragraphs, I suggest just holding it. The statements are unchallenged historical and scientific facts. But if you must, go ahead. I’ll ready to practice my patience again.
So, yes, you did, or confused (either unintentionally, or not) me with Mike.
I was sincerely interested to know if Mike really thought God would protect us from global warming, or if he was being facetious. I personally think the evidence is in Genesis that God would NOT save us from destroying the earth, but I left that part out because I wasn’t sure if he was serious.
Then you had to come along and goad me, as usual, at which point you equated climate science to faith, when neither are related. Let me quote you again doing this, because you’re going to deny it.
Anthropomorphic global warming is the wacky faith based religion of the left, so I guess a Jesus reference isn’t completely out of place.
I’m still not clear why you’re allowed to respond to me with disdain, and when I respond to you, I’m the asshole.
I really would love some clarification on that point.Do you guys have email addresses, I have a couple of questions.
*taptap* Is this thing on?
PS: Sincerely, nice work expressing your opinion clearly for once in above post. I disagree on some points, and if you’d like to start a thread on it, I’d be more than happy to discuss it with you. Hell, I’ll give you my email address, maybe that way I won’t have to deal with the rah-rah cheerleading squad.
Oops. Forgot to address the last part of your post. Here ya go:
you have’t addressed why I’m wrong in any substantive way.
Um, yeah I did. In a simple basic statement. Most, if not everyone else, got it. Go back and read it a few times, maybe it’ll sink in. My patience has limits and this isn’t special ed class.
Actually, that new fallacy you’re using is called “Begging the question”.
Um.. actually, no. It is not.
But WTF is this, and what does it have to do with anything? “That new” fallacy? Really? You can’t refute my correct use of the term so now you’re attempting to somehow weaken it by claiming it is “new”? Is this for real? Am I on some new web version of Candid Camera?
A few weeks ago I would have simply chalked this up to arrogance. But now, I truly am serious about believing there may be underlying issues.
I clearly pointed out where you erred in your claims and accusations. Pointed it out, unequivocally. Being keenly aware of your penchant to employ u*nc like abilities to deny, deflect, and obfuscate, I provided no less that five, FIVE, different independent sources that showed I clearly used the term “logical fallacy” in a correct and neutral manner.
It was your predisposition and bias that assumed it was a persona attack. Your words:
By the way, here’s the logical fallacy you used.
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/appeal_ridicule.htm
It was your smug, unwarranted arrogance that led you to assume I used the term incorrectly, when in reality, it was you who was mistaken; lead astray by your ignorance and pompous undue feeling of superiority.
Whether the root cause is insecurity, simple vocabulary shortcomings, self-esteem issues or something else, I am not to blame for your misinterpretation. I used the term clearly and in its proper context.
I personally think the evidence is in Genesis that God would NOT save us from destroying the earth, but I left that part out because I wasn’t sure if he was serious.
On that, we can agree.
But on a tangent, I’d suggest that perhaps the Biblical flood was not originally written as global. The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew (the New in Greek), and the original Hebrew word meant something akin to land or country, and NOT the entire globe. But that was just one of many translation errors from the original Hebrew to Greek to eventually the English King James version. And then there’s the Epic of Gilgamesh, which is from where some claim the original story of the Biblical flood was copied.
With that, I’m out.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
