If you think the catholics are deluded...check this out!!

Kidchameleon

Jernal wrote: »

Folks,

No bully accusations please.

Ta,

Apologies Jernal. Probably should have worded that differently.

Its a form of bullying to slag someone because of their religious beliefs.

kylith

Is it a form of bullying to slag someone off because they believe in fairies?

robindch

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Its a form of bullying to slag someone because of their religious beliefs.

Why?

Quite apart from:

MagicMarker

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Apologies Jernal. Probably should have worded that differently.

Its a form of bullying to slag someone because of their religious beliefs.

Obliq

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Well, I'm disinclined to take that at face (or even chin) value.
My understanding is that the receptor one gene for red hair is recessive, and hence you can have it and not be red haired at all, or have it and have red facial and body hair but not head hair, or be ginge all over.
In other words, it's the interactions with more dominant genes which decides whether it manifests as red hair on head, face or elsewhere, not 'how much' of it you have, which is sort of meaningless in a binary context.

Don't know about all that Red, but I'm proud to be one......."Pale skin allows those living at higher latitudes and exposed to less frequent and weaker sunlight to more efficiently synthesize vitamin D." Made for this country we are.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=were-neandertals-the-orig

Turtwig

Sarky wrote: »

(personal correspondence, 2008)

Was this before or after the love letters I sent ya that you never replied you ? I'm afraid I never really organised my correspondences chronologically. All I see is different shades of paper.
I'll find it though, have no fear.:D

Peregrinus

Dades wrote: »

By all means explain (with citations) the Jewish chap in the bag if you have the real story... otherwise the parade goes on.

The "real story", we're told in post #8, is sourced from the Daily Mail.

I know atheists can be as credulous as anyone else but, really, there have to be some standards applied.

Nobody should ever be called upon to refute a story that's take from the Daily Mail. Rather, those who cite the Daily Mail as a source for anything should be made to go and do a remedial course in critical thinking before being readmitted to polite society.

ShooterSF

Jernal wrote: »

Linky?

Dades

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Its a form of bullying to slag someone because of their religious beliefs.

In certain real life scenarios, of course. But to suggest this thread is bullying is borderline hysteria.

Peregrinus wrote: »

The "real story", we're told in post #8, is sourced from the Daily Mail.

I know atheists can be as credulous as anyone else but, really, there have to be some standards applied.

Nobody should ever be called upon to refute a story that's take from the Daily Mail. Rather, those who cite the Daily Mail as a source for anything should be made to go and do a remedial course in critical thinking before being readmitted to polite society.

There's any number of news sites echoing the Daily mail story, including JewishPress.com and Harratz.com. There's also an article about it here with some interesting supporting links.

It took me all of half-a-minute to find them.

MrPudding

Kidchameleon wrote: »

12 year old article from another rag that states nobody was ever allowed to travel like that. Excellent research skills there :rolleyes:

And another 40 seconds of research...

http://www.haaretz.com/news/ultra-orthodox-passengers-riot-aboard-el-al-plane-over-screening-of-film-1.243447

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/el-al-decides-against-body-bags-for-kohanim-1.73451

http://www.haaretz.com/news/ultra-orthodox-passengers-riot-aboard-el-al-plane-over-screening-of-film-1.243447

And so what if the articles are 12 years old? They are referring to activity which is the subject of the thread. Whilst they may not confirm the validity of of the picture we are discussing they do provide background and some degree of confirmation that this particular behaviour has apparanelt happened in the past and there are, in fact, some nut bars out there that think this is an actual solution to an imaginary problem. Please feel free to report by post if you feel that calling people that believe being in a sealed metal tube if not sufficient to prevent them from being touched by the spirit of the dead, but the addition of a fcuking plastic bag sorts it right out, nut bars.

MrP

Peregrinus

MrPudding wrote: »

. . . Please feel free to report by post if you feel that calling people that believe being in a sealed metal tube if not sufficient to prevent them from being touched by the spirit of the dead, but the addition of a fcuking plastic bag sorts it right out, nut bars.

Who's talking about reporting posts, Mr P? Persecution complex, much?

None of your links, not even the Daily Mail, claims that this behaviour is motivated by a belief that “being in a sealed metal tube is not sufficient to prevent them from being touched by the spirit of the dead, but the addition of a fcuking plastic bag sorts it right out”. That’s pure invention; you have no reason at all to think that this man believes this.

If you want to know what belief motivates this man’s behaviour, Mr P, you’re going to have to ask him, or at least ask someone who knows a bit about halachic law and practices. But, obviously, if your only object is to deride him, it’s perfectly easy to do that from a position of ignorance, so why bother with tiresome facts? Just make stuff up that confirms your existing preconceptions, and away you go!

If you can produce any evidence that this man’s motivation is as you claim, Mr P, I’ll have a go at refuting it. As it is, I’ve got nothing to refute; just your own unevidenced belief.

Turtwig

Peregrinus wrote: »

As it is, I’ve got nothing to refute; just your own unevidenced belief.

Now you know how us atheists feel most of the time.:pac:

Lorcan_D

That is absolutely mad. Also lol at him actually thinking a plastic bag Is a shield haha

MrPudding

Peregrinus wrote: »

Who's talking about reporting posts, Mr P? Persecution complex, much?

That particular comment was in response to that particular poster’s accusation that mocking someone’s belief was bullying.

Peregrinus wrote: »

None of your links, not even the Daily Mail, claims that this behaviour is motivated by a belief that “being in a sealed metal tube is not sufficient to prevent them from being touched by the spirit of the dead, but the addition of a fcuking plastic bag sorts it right out”. That’s pure invention; you have no reason at all to think that this man believes this.

First of all, and most importantly, I don’t believe I posted a link to the Daily Mail, and if I did I beg forgiveness.

Second, whilst we don’t have any specific primary sources for the particular man in the picture, we do have reports that a particular flavour of religious person believed that the addition of a plastic bag was required to ensure safe flight over cemeteries.

Peregrinus wrote: »

If you want to know what belief motivates this man’s behaviour, Mr P, you’re going to have to ask him, or at least ask someone who knows a bit about halachic law and practices.

I am not particularly bother what this particular man believes. I have no way of knowing why he is in a plastic bag, nor, I believe, do we even have any idea when the picture was taken.

As often happens, the thread and the conversation has moved on. The motivations of this particular individual are now secondary to the thread. Whatever his motivations are the thread has revealed that, apparently, there is a sect that believes a sealed metal tube is not sufficient protection from the spirits of the dead, but a plastic bag does. Perhaps it is the dead organisms in the plastic that repel the spirits.

In the absence of a primary source I am reasonably happy with the stories from the Jewish website reporting this type of behaviour. From those stories I think it is reasonable to believe that this type of behaviour has occurred before.

Peregrinus wrote: »

But, obviously, if your only object is to deride him, it’s perfectly easy to do that from a position of ignorance, so why bother with tiresome facts? Just make stuff up that confirms your existing preconceptions, and away you go!

I am not deriding him, specifically. I am deriding people that think they will become ritually unclean if they travel over a cemetery in a seal metal tube but believe the additional shielding of a plastic bag somehow, magically I presume, protects them from these spirits touching them.

Now, if he is a person that is wearing the plastic bag for that reason, then I am deriding him. Without knowing his reason for wearing the bag I cannot deride him specifically, that would be silly. He may have a perfectly good reason for being in a bag, perhaps he suffers from some kind of chronic allergic illness and contact with the outside world makes him ill. If that was the case them it would be silly to deride him.

Peregrinus wrote: »

If you can produce any evidence that this man’s motivation is as you claim, Mr P, I’ll have a go at refuting it. As it is, I’ve got nothing to refute; just your own unevidenced belief.

Like I said, I don’t need to know the man’s motivation. The conversation is now wider than this specific person. His motivation is irrelevant. If people do what he has done for the reason detailed above then that act is worthy of derision and ridicule. If he have a perfectly reasonable reason for dressing up in a plastic bag, severe allergic reactions for example, then he does not deserve derision and ridicule, but that does not validate the act for other that do it to stop them being polluted by spirits.

In the interests of increasing knowledge, if you would like to refute the practice of wearing a plastic bag on a flight as protection against the spirits of the dead, in general, I would be more than happy for you to do that. I have not had the chance to carry out as much research as I would like to, so if you have any knowledge of the alleged practice I would be genuinely interested to see it.

MrP

Dades

Peregrinus wrote: »

None of your links, not even the Daily Mail, claims that this behaviour is motivated by a belief that “being in a sealed metal tube is not sufficient to prevent them from being touched by the spirit of the dead, but the addition of a fcuking plastic bag sorts it right out”. That’s pure invention; you have no reason at all to think that this man believes this.

Okay let's have a look.

“being in a sealed metal tube is not sufficient to prevent them from being touched by the spirit of the dead"

The fact that they need to further protect themselves from the "column of tumah", suggests that the experts don't feel the fuselage of a modern airliner is sufficient.

“but the addition of a fcuking plastic bag sorts it right out”

Experts in such matters have stated that a plastic covering (a bag, it you will) fitted and sealed correctly could in fact operate as a barrier system. So the only discrepancy in MrPs description seems to be the "spirit of the dead" part which could be seen as a liberal description of what believers consider the tumah to be.

RustyNut

Obliq wrote: »

Don't know about all that Red, but I'm proud to be one......."Pale skin allows those living at higher latitudes and exposed to less frequent and weaker sunlight to more efficiently synthesize vitamin D." Made for this country we are.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=were-neandertals-the-orig

And we get coke and a twix. Win win.....:D

Peregrinus

Dades wrote: »

Okay let's have a look.

“being in a sealed metal tube is not sufficient to prevent them from being touched by the spirit of the dead"

The fact that they need to further protect themselves from the "column of tumah", suggests that the experts don't feel the fuselage of a modern airliner is sufficient.

“but the addition of a fcuking plastic bag sorts it right out”

Experts in such matters have stated that a plastic covering (a bag, it you will) fitted and sealed correctly could in fact operate as a barrier system. So the only discrepancy in MrPs description seems to be the "spirit of the dead" part which could be seen as a liberal description of what believers consider the tumah to be.

Be honest, Dades. Are you seriously suggesting that there is any sense, however liberal, in which tumah means anything remotely like "the spirits of the dead"? Or are you merely suggesting that Mr P thinks that? If the latter, that isn't a very nice thing to say about Mr P, is it?

And are you further seriously suggesting that tumah is avoided through something akin to a barrier method of contraception, where the material qualities of the barrier are in some way the source of the protection? Or, again, are you just accusing Mr P of thinking this?

pH

Ahh Pery - you storm in here lambasting us about how we could be so "credulous" and believe what was written in the Daily Mail, and when shown you're wrong, decide to save some face and proceed with a spirited attack about how one poster, in a throwaway comment might have got one piece of extremely obscure Jewish ritual law slightly wrong - therefore you were right all along?

And are you further seriously suggesting that tumah is avoided through something akin to a barrier method of contraception, where the material qualities of the barrier are in some way the source of the protection? Or, again, are you just accusing Mr P of thinking this?

Well if he isn't - I AM.

Anyway - all of this is too funny:
http://www.yated.com/kohanim-concerns-while-flying-to-and-from-eretz-yisroel.0-576-0.html

Peregrinus

pH wrote: »

Ahh Pery - you storm in here lambasting us about how we could be so "credulous" and believe what was written in the Daily Mail, and when shown you're wrong, decide to save some face and proceed with a spirited attack about how one poster, in a throwaway comment might have got one piece of extremely obscure Jewish ritual law slightly wrong - therefore you were right all along?

I was right.

The Daily Mail article linked in the first post contains this:

“. . . . he wrapped himself in plastic in the belief that it would act as a shield from the spirits far below.”

A number of posters took this at face value - jd83 in post #12, pH in post #20, Mr Pudding in post #41 - thereby displaying a touching faith in the authority and reliability of the Daily Maiil. (A faith which, if we are honest, flies in the face of both reason and experience.)

When challenged, several posters found other links about this phenomenon, but not a single one of those links confirmed the Daily Mail’s claim about this man’s belief. Yet even though these cites were dug up for the purpose of confirming the Daily Mail\ story, nobody seems to have noticed this. Which suggest that their critical thinking skills might not be what they ought to be.

Even basic critical thinking would help people to avoid this error. The halachic purity codes, as is well known, are the product of a society and culture which denied that the dead had any spirits. The likelihood, therefore, that this behaviour is motivated by a belief in “spirits” associated with cemeteries is slim. So that alone should make you sceptical of the Daily Mail’s claim. But, if you want to dig a bit deeper, the purity codes are laid out in some detail in the Hebrew scriptures, which are readily available online in a variety of translations. The passages which discuss this particular issue, surprise surprise, make no mention of the spirits of the dead, or of spirits of any kind. (Lev 21:1 is the key text; you could have found that out in Wikipedia, so it’s not exactly a closely guarded secret.) These things aren’t difficult to look into, for anyone who wants to inform themselves.

Anyone who wants to criticise this man’s beliefs has to take the basic first step of finding out what his beliefs are. Finding out what his beliefs are and then criticising them is scepticism; that’s fine, and it’s the kind of thing this board should promote. Criticising his beliefs when you have no idea what they are is ignorant bigotry, basically. Thinking you know what his beliefs are because you read something in the Daily Mail is credulousness. Ignorance, bigotry and credulousness are not the kind of thing this board generally aims to promote.

And it’s very difficult to be taken seriously when you criticise religious believers for credulousness once you've established a track record of defending it in unbelievers. Just sayin’.

Turtwig

Just a slight little note there Pere.

If it's a belief of any nature, then it doesn't necessarily have to be logical and consistent with core Hebrew teaching. It might just be some insane interpretation or misconception that became commonplace with certain folk. Or it could be something else entirely. If there are several examples of a practice occurring then the validity of the reasoning behind the practice is irrelevant.

The question is essentially : "Are there examples of the practice occurring?" From pH's link above it would appear that a group of people believe that flying over a cemetery is wrong. So much so that they managed to convince an airport to accommodate these beliefs into its take-off route. The link also discusses the plastic bag conundrum. So, I guess, the issue here is how credible is pH's link?

I do agree with your core point, too many media sites parroted the original story on face value without really checking the source. I'm delighted you encouraged folks to dig deeper. If anything, you served to further illustrate how bizarre this practice, if it occurs, actually is.:D

I don't however think it's fair to imply that people who mocked the practice without knowing the full extent of beliefs were being ignorant bigots. This is somebody wearing a plastic bag on a plane.(Unless the image is a fake.) That by virtue of itself is unique and frankly unbelievably stupid. Whatever his beliefs may be, the act he supposedly carried out was naive to say the least.

If anything this thread has served to illustrate 3 points.
- The image is most likely not a fake. (I had kind of hoped it was.)
- We don't know for certain the individual man's beliefs but we can speculate with some deal of confidence that he might be a Kohen.
- Some Kohen really do seem to believe that they can't fly over cemeteries and as a result they might just have come up with truly innovative solutions to their problem.

Peregrinus

I agree, his belief “doesn't necessarily have to be logical and consistent with core Hebrew teaching”. But that’s hardly enough to establish that it’s deluded, which is the claim made in the thread title. I think the fact remains that, if you are going to attack this bloke’s beliefs as deluded, or characterise them in any other way, an absolutely necessary first step is to establish what his beliefs are.

I agree, the practice here is odd. Very odd. But I don’t think, unless we are extraordinarily smug, self-satisfied and arrogant, we can condemn somebody as deluded simply because he behaves in a way that we would not.

It’s entirely possible, to pluck a thought out of the air, that this bloke understood the value of his action as symbolic. This is a fairly obvious possibility, but it doesn’t seem to have occurred to anyone rushing to condemn him. Or, it could have been a protest against the routing of the flight over a cemetery, creating unnecessary difficulties for excessively scrupulous kohenim. You don’t have to agree with these motivations for his action in order to concede that they’re not necessarily delusional.

What this thread illustrates, I think, is that people who aspire to be sceptical, and who aspire to be critical, may be neither sceptical nor critical when presented with a claim which (a) is unlikely to be true, (b) is wholly unevidenced, but (c) panders to their preconceptions.

And, just to be clear. When you say somebody is delusional, I think you're mocking his beliefs, not his practices. But, even so, I wouldn't say that posters on this thread who did that were ignorant bigots. I think they can point to the Daily Mail report as having mislead them about his beliefs, and they can defend themselves by saying they were not ignorant or bigotted; they were merely credulous for having accepted without question such a report from such a source.

Turtwig

Fair point on credulity.

For what it's worth I didn't like the thread title but that was the OP's opinion. I don't like comparing religious beliefs to delusions or calling religious people delusional but that's a topic for a whole other thread. (Once which I actually started years ago.:))
However, calling a person's beliefs delusional doesn't necessarily mean you think the person is themselves delusional. I know that's a subtly but it comes up time and again. It's actually similar to the idea that a callous act carried out by a person delusional at the time doesn't necessarily mean the person themselves is callous.

What this thread illustrates, I think, is that people who aspire to be sceptical, and who aspire to be critical, may be neither sceptical nor critical when presented with a claim which (a) is unlikely to be true, (b) is wholly unevidenced, but (c) panders to their preconceptions.

Pretty much any thread would illustrate that if you dig deeply enough. It's just par the course for the human condition.

Peregrinus

Jernal wrote: »

Pretty much any thread would illustrate that if you dig deeply enough. It's just par the course for the human condition.

I agree. And furthermore I’d add that we are all a lot better at recognising the beliefs that the other bloke has embraced without scrutiny and without evidence than we are at recognising the beliefs which we ourselves have embraced in that way.

But I think atheists and agnostics have a particular vulnerability here, which is that for many of them the central plank in their philosophical stance is an emphasis on the need for critical scrutiny, for evidence, for justification. Accordingly they should be that much more embarrassed when they are found to have embraced a belief for no better reason that that it appeals to their preconceptions.

And this is true in spades for those atheists who put themselves in the “atheists are more intelligent/more educated/brighter” camp. (Talk about giving a hostage to fortune! Seriously, guys, humility is a much more easily defensible position.)

One of the thing I notice hanging around on boards.ie is the threads in which a bunch of people who already agree with one another smugly get together to reassure one another about the stupidity/obtuseness/delusionality of those who take a different view. And honesty compels me to say that, as between the A&A and Christianity boards, the ratio of these thread is at least 10 to 1. Threads such as this particular one - essentially, an exercise in group reinforcement through shared derision of religious believers - are common enough on this board; the corresponding threads, not so much over there.

Perhaps this is inevitable. After all, atheism is defined negatively. What unites atheists is what they don’t believe, rather than what they do, so conversations among atheists about atheism must have a fair prospect of addressing religion at some point, and they are likely to address it in negative terms. Whereas over on Christianity they have plenty to talk about which is not atheism.

But it’s a dangerous combination. Discussions among atheists about religion, combined with the natural human tendency to embrace ideas because they appeal to us, create the perfect petri-dish in which the germ of prejudice will flourish and the cultures of scepticism and critical thinking will perish. Which is not a good look, if you’re trying to advocate for scepticism and critical thinking.

Kidchameleon

You cant have an opposing opinion in A&A without getting lashed out of it by "the gang". I say that as a non religious too.

Peregrinus

Kidchameleon wrote: »

You cant have an opposing opinion in A&A without getting lashed out of it by "the gang". I say that as a non religious too.

I gotta say I haven't found that. I've hung around quite a bit on this board as a self-identified believer, and while there's been plenty of robust disagreement - which is what you'd expect - I've never felt "lashed out of it". I don't think believers necessarily get any rougher a ride on this board than unbelievers do over on Christianity. Sometimes you need a thick skin but, hey, I'm as thick as the next bloke.

Belief, on the other hand, receives concentrated negative attention on this board in a way that isn't true over beyond. Some of that is thoughtful, critical, sceptical attention; some of it, not such much. But given the focus of the board - atheism and agnosticism - you pretty well have to expect that concentration, because atheism and agnosticism are both basically defined by their attitude to religious belief.

It might have been different if this board had been, say, humanism, or scepticism, or secularism, or non-religious/non-theistic philosophies of life in general. But as regards setting up the board and defining its focus, that ship has probably sailed.

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

Ignorance, bigotry and credulousness are not the kind of thing this board generally aims to promote.

While the Daily Mail is certainly frowned upon in these parts, not everything it produces is fabricated either.

It's also quite unhelpful of you to suggest, as you have done here and before in this thread, that the general readership of A+A (unlike yourself, presumably) is credulous, bigoted or ignorant, or likely to be heading that way because they're laughing at a picture of a guy in a bag in a plane.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Threads such as this particular one - essentially, an exercise in group reinforcement through shared derision of religious believers

Sometimes people post things because they're funny and they'd like to share the gag with others.

That's not "an exercise in group reinforcement through shared derision" as you declare it -- with a degree of pomposity which is actually quite funny in itself -- but very simply, just a few people having a passing giggle.

pH

Peregrinus wrote: »

I was right.

The Daily Mail article linked in the first post contains this:

“. . . . he wrapped himself in plastic in the belief that it would act as a shield from the spirits far below.”

A number of posters took this at face value - jd83 in post #12, pH in post #20, Mr Pudding in post #41 - thereby displaying a touching faith in the authority and reliability of the Daily Maiil. (A faith which, if we are honest, flies in the face of both reason and experience.)

When challenged, several posters found other links about this phenomenon, but not a single one of those links confirmed the Daily Mail’s claim about this man’s belief. Yet even though these cites were dug up for the purpose of confirming the Daily Mail\ story, nobody seems to have noticed this. Which suggest that their critical thinking skills might not be what they ought to be.

Even basic critical thinking would help people to avoid this error. The halachic purity codes, as is well known, are the product of a society and culture which denied that the dead had any spirits. The likelihood, therefore, that this behaviour is motivated by a belief in “spirits” associated with cemeteries is slim. So that alone should make you sceptical of the Daily Mail’s claim. But, if you want to dig a bit deeper, the purity codes are laid out in some detail in the Hebrew scriptures, which are readily available online in a variety of translations. The passages which discuss this particular issue, surprise surprise, make no mention of the spirits of the dead, or of spirits of any kind. (Lev 21:1 is the key text; you could have found that out in Wikipedia, so it’s not exactly a closely guarded secret.) These things aren’t difficult to look into, for anyone who wants to inform themselves.

Anyone who wants to criticise this man’s beliefs has to take the basic first step of finding out what his beliefs are. Finding out what his beliefs are and then criticising them is scepticism; that’s fine, and it’s the kind of thing this board should promote. Criticising his beliefs when you have no idea what they are is ignorant bigotry, basically. Thinking you know what his beliefs are because you read something in the Daily Mail is credulousness. Ignorance, bigotry and credulousness are not the kind of thing this board generally aims to promote.

And it’s very difficult to be taken seriously when you criticise religious believers for credulousness once you've established a track record of defending it in unbelievers. Just sayin’.

Ah yes, when you posted here first, you were not pointing out our credulity for believing that a man was wrapping himself in plastic for religious reasons, you were merely being a hair-splitting pedant and claiming that the someone had gotten the basis of these religious reasons slightly wrong. That's your story (and I guess you're sticking to it now).

And yet ...

Your pedantry seems to revolve around the use of the words "spirits", and you include my post #20 in this, when in fact I don't mention spirits, but use the word "impurities", which is exactly what this "well known"! halachic purity code seems to be about.

Kidchameleon

robindch wrote: »

Sometimes people post things because they're funny and they'd like to share the gag with others.

So post them in after hours. What has plastic bag man got to do with being atheist?

Pherekydes

Peregrinus wrote: »

When challenged, several posters found other links about this phenomenon, but not a single one of those links confirmed the Daily Mail’s claim about this man’s belief.

What caused the guy to sit in a plastic bag if it wasn't his belief(s)?

Your adherence to sophist pedantry simply to point-score does you no favours.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

What has plastic bag man got to do with being atheist?

The perils of religious beliefs? Just guessing. You claim to be non-religious; doesn't some of this religious stuff amuse you even a little. Or are you still in thrall to it?

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

While the Daily Mail is certainly frowned upon in these parts, not everything it produces is fabricated either.

No, of course not. But it shouldn’t be uncritically accepted.

robindch wrote: »

It's also quite unhelpful of you to suggest, as you have done here and before in this thread, that the general readership of A+A (unlike yourself, presumably) is credulous, bigoted or ignorant . . .

Dear me, Robin, but you’re very sensitive this morning. I haven’t suggested anything of the kind. I suggested that certain participants had exhibited credulousness in this thread, and I went so far as to name names up in post #50. And I also suggested that humanity in general is prone to accept uncritically unevidenced ideas that appeal to them – or, rather Jernal suggested that , and I agreed. You’re going to have to work very hard to parlay that into a general accusation of credulousness, ignorance and bigotry againt the denizens of this board as a class.

As for your presumption that I exclude myself from these strictures, this is another example of a belief adopted without any evidential support. The evidence in fact contradicts your belief; have another read of the first paragraph in my post #54.

robindch wrote: »

That's not "an exercise in group reinforcement through shared derision" as you declare it -- with a degree of pomposity which is actually quite funny in itself -- but very simply, just a few people having a passing giggle.

Ah, well, one man’s high-minded quest for truth and understanding is another man’s pomposity, I suppose!:D