Bill, even on your bad days you have more to say than some do on their best. Don’t sweat it. Plus, plus you have no problem admitting it and even apologizing, which either means you were born with a certain amount of class or just raised right. It’s the old nature vs nurture argument. regardless, one either has it or one doesn’t. You have it, which must be very annoying to those who don’t.
I second what Bill Mulligan said Bill. I guess we both had a bad day at the same time, but we’re all good now.
In a medium that seems to attract people who deliberatly are trying to offend each other we should be thankful that there are people who try hard to be civil to each other. If we slip, we should recognize it as the exception in ourselves and in each other.
“two different English translations of the Sixth Amendment — “Thou Shalt Not Kill” vs. “Thou Shalt Not Murder” — and pointed out that the latter seems to make more sense when you look at other Biblical passages related to killing.”
Some interesting questions in the field of biblical studies:
1) Why do some English translations have thou shall not kill instead of thou shall not committ murder? What is the source?
2) When and how is the Hebrew word for murder in the original language of the commandment used in the rest of the bible (OT)? It seems to me that it is not used often, even to describe brutal killings. I wonder why?
3) What is the significance of the use of the word murder in that commandment, a opposed to another word?
I think between them the Jewish Rabbis, Christian theologians and modern biblical scholars have written much about it.
Actually, the Sixth “Amendment” (to the U.S. Constitution) guarantees criminal defendants a speedy trial. The Sixth “Commandment” is a little tougher.
Jeffrey. I believe the issue of not trying to trip people on mistakes in style but rather to pay attention to what they actualy meab has been addressed on this thread already. Is the post above the best you can add to this discussion? Is it worth the time?
———–
I did a little checking concerning the wording of the bible.
In modern hebrew the word that appears in the commandment mean murder. However, the bible refers to ‘accidental murder’, which doesn’t make sense in English or modern Hebrew.
However, the distinction between this forbidden kind of killing and execution, that is between killing by the law and outside the law, exists in the text and in later interpretation. It is also clear that the biblical society, as well as future Rabbis, distinguished between different kinds of killing. The Hebrew bible distinguishes deliberate ‘murder’, which is punishable by death, and accidental ‘murder’ which isn’t.
It would also seem that the wording of the commandment, and the severity of the punishment, stand in contrast to Babylonian law in which the option exists to pay fine for murder, and there is a distinction between the killing of slaves, but less of a distinction beteen deliberate and accidental deaths.
However, the distinction between this forbidden kind of killing and execution, that is between killing by the law and outside the law, exists in the text and in later interpretation.
Rome indulged in executing Christians for being Christians, did it not? From your wording, such executions were permitted by the bible.
“Rome indulged in executing Christians for being Christians, did it not? From your wording, such executions were permitted by the bible.”
No. I said that the Ancient Hebrews, and later the Jews, distinguished between the state killing somebody according to the law and an individual acting on his own. The biblical laws included capital punishment, as did the Roman law. However, I don’t no, nor did I state, what he parameters for execution were according to biblical law or roman law, nor am I familiar with the legal justifications provided by the romans for killing Christians.
I have said that I’ve heard that in Roman times the court of the ancient rabbis’ — the Sanhedrin — has made the legal conditions for a sentence of execution to be almost impossible, which seems to suggest a reluctance on their part to use this sentence. However, as a secular Jew I am not as familiar with that era of our history as I would have liked to be, so if you’re iterested you’ll have to do the research yourself.
Forest? What forest? Dammit, can’t you see there’s trees here…?
However, the distinction between this forbidden kind of killing and execution, that is between killing by the law and outside the law, exists in the text and in later interpretation. It is also clear that the biblical society, as well as future Rabbis, distinguished between different kinds of killing. The Hebrew bible distinguishes deliberate ‘murder’, which is punishable by death, and accidental ‘murder’ which isn’t….
No. I said that the Ancient Hebrews, and later the Jews, distinguished between the state killing somebody according to the law and an individual acting on his own. The biblical laws included capital punishment, as did the Roman law. However, I don’t no, nor did I state, what he parameters for execution were according to biblical law or roman law, nor am I familiar with the legal justifications provided by the romans for killing Christians.
You referred to the biblical distinction between forbidden and allowable killing, then cited “the law.” Now you are clarifying you weren’t citing a qualifier for “distinction,” but were being redundant, and that your extensive postings establish your ignorance. Ok, thanks at least for confirming you read my post citing the Aquinas quote you introduced confirmed medievals nurtured the understanding that hëll was established with no divine punitive agenda, and you simply chose not to reply. See, I haven’t asked anyone to take my word for anything.
Mike, that’s a new record for you. It took you one post to act like an idiot.
On the Aquinas discussion, I ended my last posting on this subject with: I’m done with you. Which I was. I did glance at what you wrote after that, and saw that it was not worth responding to. It was evidently nonsense. But then again, I never expected anything more from you, I was writing for the benefit of others. And most of the people on this board on intelligent enough to get the point from my first posting. there really was no need to waste their time by responding to your inane lack of understanding and/or games.
Your response here is also indicative of your general lack of understanding of even the simplest texts. If you can’t understand a simple post, how do you expect to interpret more complex texts? What I said is as clear to anybody except you. If you feel you can’t understand it, i suggest you get some help.
“your extensive postings establish your ignorance.”
Unlike you, I never pretend to know more than I do, and if I don’t know something I either admit it or research it or both. I don’t force on the texts ideas that come from my own mind and then treat them as facts.
In this case, the exact parameters according to which Jewish law allows the use of capital punishment was irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not they distinguished between murder and execution by a court of law. Our discussion was about the latter question. If you want to discuss the former you’ll have to do the reseach yourself. It is a different subject.
“When Neil Gaiman had Charles Rowland muse that hëll was something you take with you, he may have been referring to Aquinas.”
That’s good, you are using here the phrase ‘may have’, showing caution when interpreting a text. I just find it funny that you are more cautious about attributing things to the writing of Neil Gaiman than to that of Aquinas and Dante. Is it because you are less likely to get away with attributing something to a comic book writer in this thread than a medieval writer?
Oh, and one last thing. Jeffrey, are you sufficently convinced in the futility of being responsive to Mike?
Ok, thanks at least for confirming you read my post citing the Aquinas quote you introduced confirmed medievals nurtured the understanding that hëll was established with no divine punitive agenda, and you simply chose not to reply. See, I haven’t asked anyone to take my word for anything.
On the Aquinas discussion, I ended my last posting on this subject with: I’m done with you. Which I was. I did glance at what you wrote after that, and saw that it was not worth responding to. It was evidently nonsense. But then again, I never expected anything more from you, I was writing for the benefit of others. And most of the people on this board on intelligent enough to get the point from my first posting. there really was no need to waste their time by responding to your inane lack of understanding and/or games.
Your response here is also indicative of your general lack of understanding of even the simplest texts. If you can’t understand a simple post, how do you expect to interpret more complex texts? What I said is as clear to anybody except you. If you feel you can’t understand it, i suggest you get some help.
Again, thank you for confirming.
Unlike you, I never pretend to know more than I do, and if I don’t know something I either admit it or research it or both. I don’t force on the texts ideas that come from my own mind and then treat them as facts.
Like when? I have Dante, and you provided an Aquinas quote to confirm.
Micha, Jeffrey, welcome to VOMIT (Victims Of Mike’s Intransigent Twitiness). Your membership cardas are being priority couriered to you.
“Again, thank you for confirming.”
What, that you’re an idiot. I think it’s pretty obvious to most of us here. But I’m happy to help anyway. As an idiot you probably lack the mental capacity to know that you’re an idiot, so I’m happy to help you with that: Mike, you’re an idiot.
Micha, Jeffrey, welcome to VOMIT (Victims Of Mike’s Intransigent Twitiness).
Now, now, let’s not elevate this beyond what it is. I’d hate for Mike to have the saitisfaction of thinking he has made anyone a “victim”. Really, what has he done? Cost a few folks a bit of time posting to him. In return he has served as an abject lesson in how not to behave if one wishes to actually persuade people or at least present a respectable account of oneself. That’s actually a pretty good thing right there, intended or not.
(Of course, this could just be my needy, fragile, predatory agenda of privilage, for which I will be thanked…did I leave any out?)
That’s good, you are using here the phrase ‘may have’, showing caution when interpreting a text. I just find it funny that you are more cautious about attributing things to the writing of Neil Gaiman than to that of Aquinas and Dante. Is it because you are less likely to get away with attributing something to a comic book writer in this thread than a medieval writer?
I said Dante referred to no punitive agenda in the establishment of hëll. Such a statement does not refer Dante’s state of mind.
What, that you’re an idiot. I think it’s pretty obvious to most of us here. But I’m happy to help anyway. As an idiot you probably lack the mental capacity to know that you’re an idiot, so I’m happy to help you with that: Mike, you’re an idiot.
Compare the Aquinas quote you provided yourself:
On the contrary, Gregory says [The quotation is from St. Augustine (De Civ. Dei i, 8)]: “Even as in the same fire gold glistens and straw smokes, so in the same fire the sinner burns and the elect is cleansed.” Therefore the fire of Purgatory is the same as the fire of hëll: and hence they are in the same place.
With the article you felt free to cite yourself:
It is interesting to examine the Greek word for “divine”, it is from the Greek “theion”, which could also mean “divine being”, but also means “sulfur’, or in Old English “brimstone” [lit. ‘burning stone’]….
Yet the word ‘theion’ is translated as “brimstone” or “sulfur” in Luke 17:29, Rev. 9:17, 14:10, 20:10, 21:8, which is where ‘fire and brimstone’ comes out of heaven, but it is equally interchange with the words “divine fire”. Since this did not fit the translators’ preconceived ideas, it is rendered always as brimstone in this context.
Elsewhere in Revelation it states that the “heat comes out of heaven” and burns the enemies of God, yet does not harm the ones with God’s seal on their foreheads. So the same heat, the heat that is the very life and light that comes from God, burns the sinners, and does not harm the ones that love God.
And on and on.
Again, as a history student being corrected by an idiot, it must suck to be you.
I suspect that Bill Mulligan’s take on this is accurate. Some of Mike’s posts made me briefly wonder which of us was off his medication, while others supplied the answer – but none engaged me enough to be outraged. Certain exchanges with other people (including Bill Mulligan) last year did descend to a disturbingly personal level – largely but not entirely due to my own tactics becoming ugly. I had the impression way back when that some here felt I knew better, but was just being malignant; That doesn’t seem to be the case here. Mike’s thought processes, I think, are being expressed honestly. We just don’t find them convincing or intelligible.
Sorry Mike, still an idiot. You have not corrected me, you just think you did because you’re an idiot. If you weren’t an idiot you’d realize that.
Does it suck being you? It must, always thinking you’re right but being the only one that thinks so.
Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at May 21, 2007 11:03 AM
“I suspect that Bill Mulligan’s take on this is accurate. Some of Mike’s posts made me briefly wonder which of us was off his medication, while others supplied the answer – but none engaged me enough to be outraged. Certain exchanges with other people (including Bill Mulligan) last year did descend to a disturbingly personal level – largely but not entirely due to my own tactics becoming ugly. I had the impression way back when that some here felt I knew better, but was just being malignant; That doesn’t seem to be the case here. Mike’s thought processes, I think, are being expressed honestly. We just don’t find them convincing or intelligible.”
That’s a good description.
And Bill Mulligan is right, we’re not victims of Mike. Mike is the only victim of Mike. But I’m still keeping my card.
Posted by Bill Mulligan at May 21, 2007 10:29 AM
(Of course, this could just be my needy, fragile, predatory agenda of privilage, for which I will be thanked…did I leave any out?)
Any what? I think you forgot the VOMIT Double Secret Credo. If part of your agenda is putting trolls like Mikey and Bobo Preston in their respective places, where do I sign up?
Gotta truck, Cheers.
(Of course, this could just be my needy, fragile, predatory agenda of privilage, for which I will be thanked…did I leave any out?)
I disavowed the notion of you sheltering a predatory agenda, but I don’t remember you ever denying my notions of any of your arbitrary behavior. Is your reliving them somehow providing an alternative paradigm to them? If you don’t offer an alternative understanding of your actions, is there a reason to dismiss the offered explanations?
Sorry Mike, still an idiot. You have not corrected me, you just think you did because you’re an idiot. If you weren’t an idiot you’d realize that.
Does it suck being you? It must, always thinking you’re right but being the only one that thinks so.
No, being me does not suck. Distilling reason to a heretofore unknown purity (ie a basic reading of quotes you provide and stipulate to) frees me from coercion by ridicule. Why would time spent in fidelity with those who extend freedom’s reach suck?
Well Mike, I guess it is better to be a dillusional but happy idiot that being unhappy. Good for you.
“spent in fidelity with those who extend freedom’s reach suck?”
Oh, I’m blushing. I didn’t realize that we were extending freedom’s reach, or that you enjoy spending time with us here, even if you spent it holding on to absurd positions. To each his own, I guess.
“Distilling reason to a heretofore unknown purity.”
I like how you came up with a description of what you do, and then repeat it all the time. It’s very funny. I think Pad and other creators should use the same system on the back of their books or movie posters instead of quoting the reviews of other critics.
Bill, you’re forgetting Mike’s other value, though I agree he’s an excellent cautionary tale. He can be entertaining at times, not by design, of course. In fact, I think some of his posts could even call for the MST3K treatment…
I know I love watching him come up with new catchphrases which he will then run into the ground. The old classic that started it all ‘sheltering a predatory agenda’, the seemingly abandoned ‘Lennylike’ and the newly minted ‘purely distilled logic’. (Which further raises the question of what proof his logic is distilled to, and how much of it he has to drink before posting. But I digress…)
Mike, you do realize that when you try to use a lot of big words in ways that don’t always mesh, you start to play into the whole “give a chimpanzee a typewriter, and eventually you’ll get Shakespeare” mentality, right?
And yes, I totally get that I’m butchering that chimp thing.
*Sigh*
To paraphrase OB-1 Kenobi addressing Napoleon Solo’s younger brother:
“Who is the greater (idiot) The (idiot) or the (idiot) who (argues with) the (idiot)?”
“give a chimpanzee a typewriter, and eventually you’ll get Shakespeare.”
How long do we have to wait? Because so far no Shakespeare from mike, just chimp.
Except I don’t think anyone’s actually arguing with Mike, Jeffery. Arguing would imply an expectation of some sort of discussion, at least, which I think no one here is delusional enough to expect from him.
I think it’s more of a sort of ‘passing the time’ sort of thing, really… 🙂
*sighs* And, of course, I typed the wrong ‘J’ name. Sorry Jerry, mea culpa.
Ok.
To paraphrase me paraphrasing George Smiley addressing Napoleon Solo’s younger brother:
“Who is the greater (idiot)? The (idiot) or the (idiot) who (debates with) the (idiot)?”
You could also put ‘passing the time’ or ‘feeding the troll’ in there as well.
People can do what they want, but Mike debates have long ago lost their luster for me. There may be an academic interest in them for some who have a fascination with advanced mental disorders or the effects of extreme delusional paranoia, but I ain’t one of them. For me, Mike Posts are like poorly designed speed-bumps erected on the enjoyment super-highway.
Or they’re like ear hair. There may well be a purpose for them, but I’ll be dámņëd if I know what that purpose is or why they just keep getting longer and longer a time goes by while simultaneously becoming even less clear in their purpose..
Patrick Calloway: No, of course I don’t mind you substituting my name for Jerry Chandler. As for how Mr. Chandler must feel about this guilt by association….Protect yourself: Those may be fighting words.
No, being me does not suck. Distilling reason to a heretofore unknown purity…
Argh, THAT’S the one I forgot! And it’s one of my favorites too…
I disavowed the notion of you sheltering a predatory agenda,
I missed that. Was it something I said?
… but I don’t remember you ever denying my notions of any of your arbitrary behavior. Is your reliving them somehow providing an alternative paradigm to them? If you don’t offer an alternative understanding of your actions, is there a reason to dismiss the offered explanations?
I don’t know, it sounds like a lot of work. Do I win anything? I have a stack of unwatched DVDs and about 4 months worth of Video Watchdog to get to. Plus, the siren call of family, friends…I just don’t see when I’ll get to Project Address Mike’s Paradigm. But I’ll let you know if something opens up.
“Mike, you do realize that when you try to use a lot of big words in ways that don’t always mesh, you start to play into the whole “give a chimpanzee a typewriter, and eventually you’ll get Shakespeare” mentality, right?
And yes, I totally get that I’m butchering that chimp thing.”
A little bit. Basically, it goes as follows: If you give a monkey a typewriter and an infinite amount of time, then purely through random chance he’ll wind up banging out the works of Shakespeare. I’ve also heard it that if you give an infinite number of monkeys an infinite amount of time, etc.
I think in modern day, we can have a variation:
If you give a monkey an infinite amount of money over an infinite amount of time, he will eventually come up with an exit strategy for Iraq. But why would you want to?
PAD
“If you give a monkey a typewriter and an infinite amount of time, then purely through random chance he’ll wind up banging out the works of Shakespeare. I’ve also heard it that if you give an infinite number of monkeys an infinite amount of time, etc.”
Of course nowadays they use computers and the monkey end up surfing the net and arguing with trolls all the time, so they never get any work done.
“If you give a monkey an infinite amount of money over an infinite amount of time, he will eventually come up with an exit strategy for Iraq. But why would you want to?”
They don’t want to embolden the gorillas.
“If you give a monkey an infinite amount of money over an infinite amount of time, he will eventually come up with an exit strategy for Iraq. But why would you want to?”
So THAT’S where this whole idea came from? Does anyone else think that PAD may have just hit upon the Bush Administration’s source for planning?
“Distilling reason to a heretofore unknown purity” sounds an awful lot like cooking meth. Give that man some Robitussin, moth balls and a book of matches. Whenever anyone believes he has reached a clarity previously unknown to humanity, he needs to sit down and re-think a bit.
I like how you came up with a description of what you do, and then repeat it all the time. It’s very funny. I think Pad and other creators should use the same system on the back of their books or movie posters instead of quoting the reviews of other critics.
Every copy of the New York Times carries the tagline “All the news that’s fit to print.” All companies repeat their mission in their tagline — it’s called “branding.”
The only virtue of your repeated ridicule is your attempt at coercion. As far as I flabbergast everyone here by taking the quotes you provide and stipulate to at their word, I am distilling reason to a heretofore unknown purity. As this reason shelters me from your attempts at coercion by ridicule, I am free. As far as you feel the need to address being corrected by someone you portray as an idiot with ridicule, to brute-force the adoption of your argument, you seem to be a hostage to pretense.
The old classic that started it all ‘sheltering a predatory agenda’, the seemingly abandoned ‘Lennylike’ and the newly minted ‘purely distilled logic’.
I am not a platonist, and I don’t believe in a purely distilled logic. As far as you need to attribute false quotes to me, Patrick Calloway, you are a dainty man.
Mike, you do realize that when you try to use a lot of big words in ways that don’t always mesh, you start to play into the whole “give a chimpanzee a typewriter, and eventually you’ll get Shakespeare” mentality, right?
I don’t mind rephrasing, if you have any particular statement in mind.
How long do we have to wait? Because so far no Shakespeare from mike, just chimp.
Who does it suck more to be, the chimp, or the history student corrected by the chimp?
If someone comes back and makes clear or tries to make clear what they were saying or meant to say and you just want to keep pounding away on the statement that they and others have left behind… Well, you’re a Mike.
Jerry, you could make it a first for one of your accusations [against] me, and cite a time when I’ve persisted to drive home a conceded point.
People can do what they want, but Mike debates have long ago lost their luster for me. There may be an academic interest in them for some who have a fascination with advanced mental disorders or the effects of extreme delusional paranoia, but I ain’t one of them. For me, Mike Posts are like poorly designed speed-bumps erected on the enjoyment super-highway.
Jerry, when are you going to realize everyone else reading this has started a pool on when we’re going to give into our passions, and finally rent the room. (I don’t doubt I’ve said something you have a problems getting over — I just have no idea what I said that could qualify.)
I disavowed the notion of you sheltering a predatory agenda, but I don’t remember you ever denying my notions of any of your arbitrary behavior. Is your reliving them somehow providing an alternative paradigm to them? If you don’t offer an alternative understanding of your actions, is there a reason to dismiss the offered explanations?
I missed that. Was it something I said?
I offered an alternative interpretation of your behavior in the post first mentioning “victims of Mike.” You shortly afterwards even gave me credit for humor.
I don’t know, it sounds like a lot of work. Do I win anything? I have a stack of unwatched DVDs and about 4 months worth of Video Watchdog to get to. Plus, the siren call of family, friends…I just don’t see when I’ll get to Project Address Mike’s Paradigm. But I’ll let you know if something opens up.
As far as the angst is yours and not mine, the value of addressing my observations is entirely up to you:
(Of course, this could just be my needy, fragile, predatory agenda of privilage, for which I will be thanked…did I leave any out?)
I am just SO glad Mike is here, making the rest of us idiots look stable.
“Who does it suck more to be, the chimp, or the history student corrected by the chimp?”
Thank you, Mike, for admitting you’re a chimp.
Oh, and how could I have forgotten the occasional bouts of homophobia.
Though, as I get older and there becomes more of me, I must admit it is a novelty to be called dainty…
Thank you, Mike, for admitting you’re a chimp.
Allowing others to establish the authenticity of the offense they’ve taken is a qualification for decency.
I don’t think I’ve ever denied here the authenticity of an offense anyone else has taken. As far as we prioritize our virtues, I choose decency over invulnerability.
Oh, and how could I have forgotten the occasional bouts of homophobia.
Gay means indulging in a sexual preference for the same gender — it doesn’t mean dainty.
If you have no other example, you refer to no bouts.
Actually, I had more in mind your continual usage of it’s suggestion as the ultimate insult, such as you just did in your attempt to provoke Jerry to respond to you. And in older characterizations of posters who are friendly to one another as being in a gay relationship in terms that made it clear you veiw it as the worst thing you could suggest.
Not that you will recognize it, of course. But it’s been a diversion on a slow day. 🙂
Mike, I ridicule you because what you say is usually ridiculous, and this is the only appropriate response.
When you will correct anything I say I’ll adress it.Since you have not done it so far, and have not said anything or done anything that is worthy of anything but ridicule, ridicule is all that you’re going to get from me.
I should also tell yu that, as I look at different aspects of my life, smacking you around now and again falls under the category of guilty pleasures. Your pathetic attempts at being annoying are hardly capable of having a significant negative effect on my life, much less make them suck. If anything, you have a positive effect on my life. My life has some serious frustrating, annoying and idiotic aspects to it — even some of the serious discussions here might be at times frustrating or annoying. Yet your idiocy is so silly, absurd, ridiculuos and insignificant, just pure effortless entertainment, that it is a relief from the aspects of my life that are really frustrating. So thank you Mike, for being a brief comic relief moment of my life. And I’m happy to hear your life also doesn’t suck, although I find it hard to imagine any other motivation for your behavior. but if you’re happy being an idiot, good for you.
Actually, I had more in mind your continual usage of it’s suggestion as the ultimate insult, such as you just did in your attempt to provoke Jerry to respond to you. And in older characterizations of posters who are friendly to one another as being in a gay relationship in terms that made it clear you veiw it as the worst thing you could suggest.
Not that you will recognize it, of course. But it’s been a diversion on a slow day. 🙂
Except to the privileged who establish taboos, not all references to homosexuality are homophobic. As far as I portray no disgust at affection, but instead at Jerry’s own ignorance of his passions, the sexual-phobia is not mine.
If you can refer to no example of homophobia, you refer to no bouts.
Mike, I ridicule you because what you say is usually ridiculous, and this is the only appropriate response.
When you will correct anything I say I’ll adress it.Since you have not done it so far, and have not said anything or done anything that is worthy of anything but ridicule, ridicule is all that you’re going to get from me.
Ok:
Compare the Aquinas quote you provided yourself:
On the contrary, Gregory says [The quotation is from St. Augustine (De Civ. Dei i, 8)]: “Even as in the same fire gold glistens and straw smokes, so in the same fire the sinner burns and the elect is cleansed.” Therefore the fire of Purgatory is the same as the fire of hëll: and hence they are in the same place.
With the article you felt free to cite yourself:
It is interesting to examine the Greek word for “divine”, it is from the Greek “theion”, which could also mean “divine being”, but also means “sulfur’, or in Old English “brimstone” [lit. ‘burning stone’]….
Yet the word ‘theion’ is translated as “brimstone” or “sulfur” in Luke 17:29, Rev. 9:17, 14:10, 20:10, 21:8, which is where ‘fire and brimstone’ comes out of heaven, but it is equally interchange with the words “divine fire”. Since this did not fit the translators’ preconceived ideas, it is rendered always as brimstone in this context.
Elsewhere in Revelation it states that the “heat comes out of heaven” and burns the enemies of God, yet does not harm the ones with God’s seal on their foreheads. So the same heat, the heat that is the very life and light that comes from God, burns the sinners, and does not harm the ones that love God.
And on and on.
You said I attributed an understanding of hëll to the medievals that weren’t their’s — that there was no divine punitive agenda in its establishment — and the quotes you provide and stipulate to plainly say otherwise.
I should also tell yu that, as I look at different aspects of my life, smacking you around now and again falls under the category of guilty pleasures.
Thank you for admitting you indulge in predatory appetites. Such an admissions validates the value of what I do here — employing reason to counter coercion by ridicule.
“branding.”
Dang! Another one.
So my latest attempt at the ultimate Mike sentence:
“Thank you for proving my point that insofar as I have branded a paradigm refuting your fragile neediness to impose a predatory agenda of privilege, the burden is on you, Counselor, to establish where I have failed to distill reason to a heretofore unknown purity. Fág.”
Fág.
Bill, you are relapsing into attributing false quotes to me, and this time you seem to be taking shame-hostages, like that lawsuit that tried to coerce Rosie O’Donnell by arbitrarily airing her emails in court between her and her partner (since they didn’t have the option to marry and invoke any fifth amendment privileges). You’ve sunk to an unprecedented low. And I’m at a loss as to fathom your need to do so.
Is that your rational for reliving all of those paradigms you’ve never been able to counter — to build the fidelity between you and those you hope to create incendiary reactions in? Like that isn’t manipulative. With friends like you, who needs overseers?
Paradigm:
1. systematic arrangement of all the inflected forms of a word.
2. a standard or typical example
a representative form or pattern
a concentrated example
(in psychoanalysis) an idealized image of something (usually a parent) formed in childhood
3. the class of all items that can be substituted into the same position (or slot) in a grammatical sentence
a collection of things sharing a common attribute
4. the generally accepted perspective of a particular disciple at a given time
a way of regarding situations or topics etc.
(Source: “The Free Dictionary”)
So Mike, how is Micha to “relive” or even “counter” this or any paradigm? Do you find the shape of the word alluring (ooh – P A R A D I G M – pretty!) or has your pathology given new, arcane meanings to the dull old word?
So Mike, how is Micha to “relive” or even “counter” this or any paradigm? Do you find the shape of the word alluring (ooh – P A R A D I G M – pretty!) or has your pathology given new, arcane meanings to the dull old word?
Feel free to replace “reliving all of those paradigms” with “reliving the establishment of all of those paradigms.” I have no reservation against phrasing it that way from here on out. There, you get to say you busted me. I’m glad for whatever non-pathological pleasure that gives you.
As paradigms can be challenged, they can be countered. “Challenged” is probably better, but I don’t waive the privilege of using “countered.”
Bill! How could you forget to include ‘not waiving the privledge’? I’m shocked and disappointed….
Bill, you are relapsing into attributing false quotes to me,
Gosh, Mike, I didn’t really think that anyone would be stupid enough to not get that I was just trying to mock your writing style by creating something like the ultimate Mike sentence. I used the phrase “So my latest attempt at the ultimate Mike sentence:” as a sort of secret message to those who could crack the subtle code. Alas! I see your point that it probably just flew over everyone else’s head and, believing the line to be yours, it has diminished the incredibly high regard they have for you. I don sackcloth and smite myself in humble supplication.
As for your supposed homophobia…frankly I don’t think you’re homophobic. You just think that calling someone gay is an insult that will hurt them and get the reaction you desire. Homophobia seems an inappropriate description. Creepy, loathsome, ignorant, there are better, more accurate descriptions.
Thanks for the offer, Mike, but I won’t replace anything. Everything stands as it is. You can feel free to say I didn’t “get you.” I don’t want you.
1. This definition cannot be countered. It’s analogous to a conjugation table.
2. A typical example can be countered or challenged, I guess – by something anomalous. The psychoanalytical model can be countered by nightmares about one’s parents – but that might not be useful to your argument.
3. If you challenge or counter this one, all you get is an ungrammatical sentence. Do you want one?
4. Could it be this one? Perhaps. Challenging the generally accepted perspective of a particular discipline is definitely something you can do. That is “being wrong, misinformed, or counter to common wisdom.” On rare occasions, one might even be “right” – very rare occasions, I would think.
• 
Bill, even on your bad days you have more to say than some do on their best. Don’t sweat it. Plus, plus you have no problem admitting it and even apologizing, which either means you were born with a certain amount of class or just raised right. It’s the old nature vs nurture argument. regardless, one either has it or one doesn’t. You have it, which must be very annoying to those who don’t.
I second what Bill Mulligan said Bill. I guess we both had a bad day at the same time, but we’re all good now.
In a medium that seems to attract people who deliberatly are trying to offend each other we should be thankful that there are people who try hard to be civil to each other. If we slip, we should recognize it as the exception in ourselves and in each other.
“two different English translations of the Sixth Amendment — “Thou Shalt Not Kill” vs. “Thou Shalt Not Murder” — and pointed out that the latter seems to make more sense when you look at other Biblical passages related to killing.”
Some interesting questions in the field of biblical studies:
1) Why do some English translations have thou shall not kill instead of thou shall not committ murder? What is the source?
2) When and how is the Hebrew word for murder in the original language of the commandment used in the rest of the bible (OT)? It seems to me that it is not used often, even to describe brutal killings. I wonder why?
3) What is the significance of the use of the word murder in that commandment, a opposed to another word?
I think between them the Jewish Rabbis, Christian theologians and modern biblical scholars have written much about it.
Actually, the Sixth “Amendment” (to the U.S. Constitution) guarantees criminal defendants a speedy trial. The Sixth “Commandment” is a little tougher.
Jeffrey. I believe the issue of not trying to trip people on mistakes in style but rather to pay attention to what they actualy meab has been addressed on this thread already. Is the post above the best you can add to this discussion? Is it worth the time?
———–
I did a little checking concerning the wording of the bible.
In modern hebrew the word that appears in the commandment mean murder. However, the bible refers to ‘accidental murder’, which doesn’t make sense in English or modern Hebrew.
However, the distinction between this forbidden kind of killing and execution, that is between killing by the law and outside the law, exists in the text and in later interpretation. It is also clear that the biblical society, as well as future Rabbis, distinguished between different kinds of killing. The Hebrew bible distinguishes deliberate ‘murder’, which is punishable by death, and accidental ‘murder’ which isn’t.
It would also seem that the wording of the commandment, and the severity of the punishment, stand in contrast to Babylonian law in which the option exists to pay fine for murder, and there is a distinction between the killing of slaves, but less of a distinction beteen deliberate and accidental deaths.
Rome indulged in executing Christians for being Christians, did it not? From your wording, such executions were permitted by the bible.
“Rome indulged in executing Christians for being Christians, did it not? From your wording, such executions were permitted by the bible.”
No. I said that the Ancient Hebrews, and later the Jews, distinguished between the state killing somebody according to the law and an individual acting on his own. The biblical laws included capital punishment, as did the Roman law. However, I don’t no, nor did I state, what he parameters for execution were according to biblical law or roman law, nor am I familiar with the legal justifications provided by the romans for killing Christians.
I have said that I’ve heard that in Roman times the court of the ancient rabbis’ — the Sanhedrin — has made the legal conditions for a sentence of execution to be almost impossible, which seems to suggest a reluctance on their part to use this sentence. However, as a secular Jew I am not as familiar with that era of our history as I would have liked to be, so if you’re iterested you’ll have to do the research yourself.
Forest? What forest? Dammit, can’t you see there’s trees here…?
You referred to the biblical distinction between forbidden and allowable killing, then cited “the law.” Now you are clarifying you weren’t citing a qualifier for “distinction,” but were being redundant, and that your extensive postings establish your ignorance. Ok, thanks at least for confirming you read my post citing the Aquinas quote you introduced confirmed medievals nurtured the understanding that hëll was established with no divine punitive agenda, and you simply chose not to reply. See, I haven’t asked anyone to take my word for anything.
Mike, that’s a new record for you. It took you one post to act like an idiot.
On the Aquinas discussion, I ended my last posting on this subject with: I’m done with you. Which I was. I did glance at what you wrote after that, and saw that it was not worth responding to. It was evidently nonsense. But then again, I never expected anything more from you, I was writing for the benefit of others. And most of the people on this board on intelligent enough to get the point from my first posting. there really was no need to waste their time by responding to your inane lack of understanding and/or games.
Your response here is also indicative of your general lack of understanding of even the simplest texts. If you can’t understand a simple post, how do you expect to interpret more complex texts? What I said is as clear to anybody except you. If you feel you can’t understand it, i suggest you get some help.
“your extensive postings establish your ignorance.”
Unlike you, I never pretend to know more than I do, and if I don’t know something I either admit it or research it or both. I don’t force on the texts ideas that come from my own mind and then treat them as facts.
In this case, the exact parameters according to which Jewish law allows the use of capital punishment was irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not they distinguished between murder and execution by a court of law. Our discussion was about the latter question. If you want to discuss the former you’ll have to do the reseach yourself. It is a different subject.
“When Neil Gaiman had Charles Rowland muse that hëll was something you take with you, he may have been referring to Aquinas.”
That’s good, you are using here the phrase ‘may have’, showing caution when interpreting a text. I just find it funny that you are more cautious about attributing things to the writing of Neil Gaiman than to that of Aquinas and Dante. Is it because you are less likely to get away with attributing something to a comic book writer in this thread than a medieval writer?
Oh, and one last thing. Jeffrey, are you sufficently convinced in the futility of being responsive to Mike?
Again, thank you for confirming.
Like when? I have Dante, and you provided an Aquinas quote to confirm.
Micha, Jeffrey, welcome to VOMIT (Victims Of Mike’s Intransigent Twitiness). Your membership cardas are being priority couriered to you.
“Again, thank you for confirming.”
What, that you’re an idiot. I think it’s pretty obvious to most of us here. But I’m happy to help anyway. As an idiot you probably lack the mental capacity to know that you’re an idiot, so I’m happy to help you with that: Mike, you’re an idiot.
Micha, Jeffrey, welcome to VOMIT (Victims Of Mike’s Intransigent Twitiness).
Now, now, let’s not elevate this beyond what it is. I’d hate for Mike to have the saitisfaction of thinking he has made anyone a “victim”. Really, what has he done? Cost a few folks a bit of time posting to him. In return he has served as an abject lesson in how not to behave if one wishes to actually persuade people or at least present a respectable account of oneself. That’s actually a pretty good thing right there, intended or not.
(Of course, this could just be my needy, fragile, predatory agenda of privilage, for which I will be thanked…did I leave any out?)
I said Dante referred to no punitive agenda in the establishment of hëll. Such a statement does not refer Dante’s state of mind.
Compare the Aquinas quote you provided yourself:
With the article you felt free to cite yourself:
And on and on.
Again, as a history student being corrected by an idiot, it must suck to be you.
I suspect that Bill Mulligan’s take on this is accurate. Some of Mike’s posts made me briefly wonder which of us was off his medication, while others supplied the answer – but none engaged me enough to be outraged. Certain exchanges with other people (including Bill Mulligan) last year did descend to a disturbingly personal level – largely but not entirely due to my own tactics becoming ugly. I had the impression way back when that some here felt I knew better, but was just being malignant; That doesn’t seem to be the case here. Mike’s thought processes, I think, are being expressed honestly. We just don’t find them convincing or intelligible.
Sorry Mike, still an idiot. You have not corrected me, you just think you did because you’re an idiot. If you weren’t an idiot you’d realize that.
Does it suck being you? It must, always thinking you’re right but being the only one that thinks so.
Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at May 21, 2007 11:03 AM
“I suspect that Bill Mulligan’s take on this is accurate. Some of Mike’s posts made me briefly wonder which of us was off his medication, while others supplied the answer – but none engaged me enough to be outraged. Certain exchanges with other people (including Bill Mulligan) last year did descend to a disturbingly personal level – largely but not entirely due to my own tactics becoming ugly. I had the impression way back when that some here felt I knew better, but was just being malignant; That doesn’t seem to be the case here. Mike’s thought processes, I think, are being expressed honestly. We just don’t find them convincing or intelligible.”
That’s a good description.
And Bill Mulligan is right, we’re not victims of Mike. Mike is the only victim of Mike. But I’m still keeping my card.
Posted by Bill Mulligan at May 21, 2007 10:29 AM
(Of course, this could just be my needy, fragile, predatory agenda of privilage, for which I will be thanked…did I leave any out?)
Any what? I think you forgot the VOMIT Double Secret Credo. If part of your agenda is putting trolls like Mikey and Bobo Preston in their respective places, where do I sign up?
Gotta truck, Cheers.
I disavowed the notion of you sheltering a predatory agenda, but I don’t remember you ever denying my notions of any of your arbitrary behavior. Is your reliving them somehow providing an alternative paradigm to them? If you don’t offer an alternative understanding of your actions, is there a reason to dismiss the offered explanations?
No, being me does not suck. Distilling reason to a heretofore unknown purity (ie a basic reading of quotes you provide and stipulate to) frees me from coercion by ridicule. Why would time spent in fidelity with those who extend freedom’s reach suck?
Well Mike, I guess it is better to be a dillusional but happy idiot that being unhappy. Good for you.
“spent in fidelity with those who extend freedom’s reach suck?”
Oh, I’m blushing. I didn’t realize that we were extending freedom’s reach, or that you enjoy spending time with us here, even if you spent it holding on to absurd positions. To each his own, I guess.
“Distilling reason to a heretofore unknown purity.”
I like how you came up with a description of what you do, and then repeat it all the time. It’s very funny. I think Pad and other creators should use the same system on the back of their books or movie posters instead of quoting the reviews of other critics.
Bill, you’re forgetting Mike’s other value, though I agree he’s an excellent cautionary tale. He can be entertaining at times, not by design, of course. In fact, I think some of his posts could even call for the MST3K treatment…
I know I love watching him come up with new catchphrases which he will then run into the ground. The old classic that started it all ‘sheltering a predatory agenda’, the seemingly abandoned ‘Lennylike’ and the newly minted ‘purely distilled logic’. (Which further raises the question of what proof his logic is distilled to, and how much of it he has to drink before posting. But I digress…)
Mike, you do realize that when you try to use a lot of big words in ways that don’t always mesh, you start to play into the whole “give a chimpanzee a typewriter, and eventually you’ll get Shakespeare” mentality, right?
And yes, I totally get that I’m butchering that chimp thing.
*Sigh*
To paraphrase OB-1 Kenobi addressing Napoleon Solo’s younger brother:
“Who is the greater (idiot) The (idiot) or the (idiot) who (argues with) the (idiot)?”
“give a chimpanzee a typewriter, and eventually you’ll get Shakespeare.”
How long do we have to wait? Because so far no Shakespeare from mike, just chimp.
Except I don’t think anyone’s actually arguing with Mike, Jeffery. Arguing would imply an expectation of some sort of discussion, at least, which I think no one here is delusional enough to expect from him.
I think it’s more of a sort of ‘passing the time’ sort of thing, really… 🙂
*sighs* And, of course, I typed the wrong ‘J’ name. Sorry Jerry, mea culpa.
Ok.
To paraphrase me paraphrasing George Smiley addressing Napoleon Solo’s younger brother:
“Who is the greater (idiot)? The (idiot) or the (idiot) who (debates with) the (idiot)?”
You could also put ‘passing the time’ or ‘feeding the troll’ in there as well.
People can do what they want, but Mike debates have long ago lost their luster for me. There may be an academic interest in them for some who have a fascination with advanced mental disorders or the effects of extreme delusional paranoia, but I ain’t one of them. For me, Mike Posts are like poorly designed speed-bumps erected on the enjoyment super-highway.
Or they’re like ear hair. There may well be a purpose for them, but I’ll be dámņëd if I know what that purpose is or why they just keep getting longer and longer a time goes by while simultaneously becoming even less clear in their purpose..
Patrick Calloway: No, of course I don’t mind you substituting my name for Jerry Chandler. As for how Mr. Chandler must feel about this guilt by association….Protect yourself: Those may be fighting words.
No, being me does not suck. Distilling reason to a heretofore unknown purity…
Argh, THAT’S the one I forgot! And it’s one of my favorites too…
I disavowed the notion of you sheltering a predatory agenda,
I missed that. Was it something I said?
… but I don’t remember you ever denying my notions of any of your arbitrary behavior. Is your reliving them somehow providing an alternative paradigm to them? If you don’t offer an alternative understanding of your actions, is there a reason to dismiss the offered explanations?
I don’t know, it sounds like a lot of work. Do I win anything? I have a stack of unwatched DVDs and about 4 months worth of Video Watchdog to get to. Plus, the siren call of family, friends…I just don’t see when I’ll get to Project Address Mike’s Paradigm. But I’ll let you know if something opens up.
“Mike, you do realize that when you try to use a lot of big words in ways that don’t always mesh, you start to play into the whole “give a chimpanzee a typewriter, and eventually you’ll get Shakespeare” mentality, right?
And yes, I totally get that I’m butchering that chimp thing.”
A little bit. Basically, it goes as follows: If you give a monkey a typewriter and an infinite amount of time, then purely through random chance he’ll wind up banging out the works of Shakespeare. I’ve also heard it that if you give an infinite number of monkeys an infinite amount of time, etc.
I think in modern day, we can have a variation:
If you give a monkey an infinite amount of money over an infinite amount of time, he will eventually come up with an exit strategy for Iraq. But why would you want to?
PAD
“If you give a monkey a typewriter and an infinite amount of time, then purely through random chance he’ll wind up banging out the works of Shakespeare. I’ve also heard it that if you give an infinite number of monkeys an infinite amount of time, etc.”
Of course nowadays they use computers and the monkey end up surfing the net and arguing with trolls all the time, so they never get any work done.
“If you give a monkey an infinite amount of money over an infinite amount of time, he will eventually come up with an exit strategy for Iraq. But why would you want to?”
They don’t want to embolden the gorillas.
“If you give a monkey an infinite amount of money over an infinite amount of time, he will eventually come up with an exit strategy for Iraq. But why would you want to?”
So THAT’S where this whole idea came from? Does anyone else think that PAD may have just hit upon the Bush Administration’s source for planning?
“Distilling reason to a heretofore unknown purity” sounds an awful lot like cooking meth. Give that man some Robitussin, moth balls and a book of matches. Whenever anyone believes he has reached a clarity previously unknown to humanity, he needs to sit down and re-think a bit.
Every copy of the New York Times carries the tagline “All the news that’s fit to print.” All companies repeat their mission in their tagline — it’s called “branding.”
The only virtue of your repeated ridicule is your attempt at coercion. As far as I flabbergast everyone here by taking the quotes you provide and stipulate to at their word, I am distilling reason to a heretofore unknown purity. As this reason shelters me from your attempts at coercion by ridicule, I am free. As far as you feel the need to address being corrected by someone you portray as an idiot with ridicule, to brute-force the adoption of your argument, you seem to be a hostage to pretense.
I am not a platonist, and I don’t believe in a purely distilled logic. As far as you need to attribute false quotes to me, Patrick Calloway, you are a dainty man.
I don’t mind rephrasing, if you have any particular statement in mind.
Who does it suck more to be, the chimp, or the history student corrected by the chimp?
Jerry, when are you going to realize everyone else reading this has started a pool on when we’re going to give into our passions, and finally rent the room. (I don’t doubt I’ve said something you have a problems getting over — I just have no idea what I said that could qualify.)
I offered an alternative interpretation of your behavior in the post first mentioning “victims of Mike.” You shortly afterwards even gave me credit for humor.
As far as the angst is yours and not mine, the value of addressing my observations is entirely up to you:
I am just SO glad Mike is here, making the rest of us idiots look stable.
“Who does it suck more to be, the chimp, or the history student corrected by the chimp?”
Thank you, Mike, for admitting you’re a chimp.
Oh, and how could I have forgotten the occasional bouts of homophobia.
Though, as I get older and there becomes more of me, I must admit it is a novelty to be called dainty…
Allowing others to establish the authenticity of the offense they’ve taken is a qualification for decency.
I don’t think I’ve ever denied here the authenticity of an offense anyone else has taken. As far as we prioritize our virtues, I choose decency over invulnerability.
Gay means indulging in a sexual preference for the same gender — it doesn’t mean dainty.
If you have no other example, you refer to no bouts.
Actually, I had more in mind your continual usage of it’s suggestion as the ultimate insult, such as you just did in your attempt to provoke Jerry to respond to you. And in older characterizations of posters who are friendly to one another as being in a gay relationship in terms that made it clear you veiw it as the worst thing you could suggest.
Not that you will recognize it, of course. But it’s been a diversion on a slow day. 🙂
Mike, I ridicule you because what you say is usually ridiculous, and this is the only appropriate response.
When you will correct anything I say I’ll adress it.Since you have not done it so far, and have not said anything or done anything that is worthy of anything but ridicule, ridicule is all that you’re going to get from me.
I should also tell yu that, as I look at different aspects of my life, smacking you around now and again falls under the category of guilty pleasures. Your pathetic attempts at being annoying are hardly capable of having a significant negative effect on my life, much less make them suck. If anything, you have a positive effect on my life. My life has some serious frustrating, annoying and idiotic aspects to it — even some of the serious discussions here might be at times frustrating or annoying. Yet your idiocy is so silly, absurd, ridiculuos and insignificant, just pure effortless entertainment, that it is a relief from the aspects of my life that are really frustrating. So thank you Mike, for being a brief comic relief moment of my life. And I’m happy to hear your life also doesn’t suck, although I find it hard to imagine any other motivation for your behavior. but if you’re happy being an idiot, good for you.
Except to the privileged who establish taboos, not all references to homosexuality are homophobic. As far as I portray no disgust at affection, but instead at Jerry’s own ignorance of his passions, the sexual-phobia is not mine.
If you can refer to no example of homophobia, you refer to no bouts.
Ok:
You said I attributed an understanding of hëll to the medievals that weren’t their’s — that there was no divine punitive agenda in its establishment — and the quotes you provide and stipulate to plainly say otherwise.
Thank you for admitting you indulge in predatory appetites. Such an admissions validates the value of what I do here — employing reason to counter coercion by ridicule.
“branding.”
Dang! Another one.
So my latest attempt at the ultimate Mike sentence:
“Thank you for proving my point that insofar as I have branded a paradigm refuting your fragile neediness to impose a predatory agenda of privilege, the burden is on you, Counselor, to establish where I have failed to distill reason to a heretofore unknown purity. Fág.”
Bill, you are relapsing into attributing false quotes to me, and this time you seem to be taking shame-hostages, like that lawsuit that tried to coerce Rosie O’Donnell by arbitrarily airing her emails in court between her and her partner (since they didn’t have the option to marry and invoke any fifth amendment privileges). You’ve sunk to an unprecedented low. And I’m at a loss as to fathom your need to do so.
Is that your rational for reliving all of those paradigms you’ve never been able to counter — to build the fidelity between you and those you hope to create incendiary reactions in? Like that isn’t manipulative. With friends like you, who needs overseers?
Paradigm:
1. systematic arrangement of all the inflected forms of a word.
2. a standard or typical example
a representative form or pattern
a concentrated example
(in psychoanalysis) an idealized image of something (usually a parent) formed in childhood
3. the class of all items that can be substituted into the same position (or slot) in a grammatical sentence
a collection of things sharing a common attribute
4. the generally accepted perspective of a particular disciple at a given time
a way of regarding situations or topics etc.
(Source: “The Free Dictionary”)
So Mike, how is Micha to “relive” or even “counter” this or any paradigm? Do you find the shape of the word alluring (ooh – P A R A D I G M – pretty!) or has your pathology given new, arcane meanings to the dull old word?
Feel free to replace “reliving all of those paradigms” with “reliving the establishment of all of those paradigms.” I have no reservation against phrasing it that way from here on out. There, you get to say you busted me. I’m glad for whatever non-pathological pleasure that gives you.
As paradigms can be challenged, they can be countered. “Challenged” is probably better, but I don’t waive the privilege of using “countered.”
Bill! How could you forget to include ‘not waiving the privledge’? I’m shocked and disappointed….
Bill, you are relapsing into attributing false quotes to me,
Gosh, Mike, I didn’t really think that anyone would be stupid enough to not get that I was just trying to mock your writing style by creating something like the ultimate Mike sentence. I used the phrase “So my latest attempt at the ultimate Mike sentence:” as a sort of secret message to those who could crack the subtle code. Alas! I see your point that it probably just flew over everyone else’s head and, believing the line to be yours, it has diminished the incredibly high regard they have for you. I don sackcloth and smite myself in humble supplication.
As for your supposed homophobia…frankly I don’t think you’re homophobic. You just think that calling someone gay is an insult that will hurt them and get the reaction you desire. Homophobia seems an inappropriate description. Creepy, loathsome, ignorant, there are better, more accurate descriptions.
Thanks for the offer, Mike, but I won’t replace anything. Everything stands as it is. You can feel free to say I didn’t “get you.” I don’t want you.
1. This definition cannot be countered. It’s analogous to a conjugation table.
2. A typical example can be countered or challenged, I guess – by something anomalous. The psychoanalytical model can be countered by nightmares about one’s parents – but that might not be useful to your argument.
3. If you challenge or counter this one, all you get is an ungrammatical sentence. Do you want one?
4. Could it be this one? Perhaps. Challenging the generally accepted perspective of a particular discipline is definitely something you can do. That is “being wrong, misinformed, or counter to common wisdom.” On rare occasions, one might even be “right” – very rare occasions, I would think.