ytrehalf wrote:If you would have people believe that this "critical analysis" of the Judaic mentality is equal to the critical analysis of the Christian mentality that you've offered here and elsewhere, I think that the point is obvious.

If it were obvious, I wouldn't be asking about it. I don't know what you're asking, or rather, what your beef is. What exactly is your beef?

This trait of communication can make it difficult to discern a Christian's genuine (unfiltered-by-decorum) feelings in any situation. In recording, it is best to have direct, unequivocal responses to situations: "That bass sound is not going to cut it," "I'd like to do that over," "No echo on the vocal on this one," "Don't change that -- I like it the way it is," "That snare sounds bad."

Most heathens (myself included) don't hesitate to make flat, sometimes contentious decrees. Many will cuss and carry on. Most Christians try to be accommodating -- try to go along, and in so doing can suppress or veil their communication in a way that allows their co-operative nature to be taken advantage-of.

next album you dog of a engineer no accomodations for you to take advantage of with your dominating heathen style. I long suspected you have been abusing my self disappointment to intrude your own brutal godless snare sound into my supernatural vocalizations. next session "listen to me you dick" shall be the founding text. By the way, I only pretended to enjoy covorting about in the pink fuzzy suit to avoid contradictions with you atheist pigs. The malt syrup? this I truly like. yes...yes....
andrew

steve wrote:

ytrehalf wrote:If you would have people believe that this "critical analysis" of the Judaic mentality is equal to the critical analysis of the Christian mentality that you've offered here and elsewhere, I think that the point is obvious.

If it were obvious, I wouldn't be asking about it. I don't know what you're asking, or rather, what your beef is. What exactly is your beef?

The point is that your scruntiny of ideologies is applied in an unbalanced manner. As evident from this exchange and elsewhere on this forum, Christianity is intensely scrutinized, while other ideologies--many with far more evident weaknesses than those that you believe to exist within Christianity--get a pass.

vilna43 wrote:next album you dog of a engineer no accomodations for you to take advantage of with your dominating heathen style.

I quite like "Dominating Heathen Style." It sounds like a Wu-Tang slogan or Lee Perry or something.

Lay the bass dominating heathen style!

I break the microphone dominating heathen style!

Pretty girls all come crying dominating heathen style!

Suckers beware dominating heathen style!

I think you've done me a huge favor here, Andrew. Happy New Year.

ytrehalf wrote:

steve wrote:

ytrehalf wrote:If you would have people believe that this "critical analysis" of the Judaic mentality is equal to the critical analysis of the Christian mentality that you've offered here and elsewhere, I think that the point is obvious.

If it were obvious, I wouldn't be asking about it. I don't know what you're asking, or rather, what your beef is. What exactly is your beef?

The point is that your scruntiny of ideologies is applied in an unbalanced manner. As evident from this exchange and elsewhere on this forum, Christianity is intensely scrutinized, while other ideologies--many with far more evident weaknesses than those that you believe to exist within Christianity--get a pass.

Try here.

ytrehalf wrote:The point is that your scruntiny of ideologies is applied in an unbalanced manner. As evident from this exchange and elsewhere on this forum, Christianity is intensely scrutinized, while other ideologies--many with far more evident weaknesses than those that you believe to exist within Christianity--get a pass.

I am not as confronted by other ideologues, dominant in our culture yet trying to become all-controlling, as I am by christians. I respond more directly to self-professed christians than other sectarians because they impose (or attempt to impose) on my life more. If I were in the Gaza, I'd have a different target, different if I were in Istanbul.

If we are discussing A, and I call him a liar, It means nothing to say I haven't also called B a liar. We were discussing A. There may be time to get to B yet, but he's irrelevant for the moment.

steve wrote:

ytrehalf wrote:The point is that your scruntiny of ideologies is applied in an unbalanced manner. As evident from this exchange and elsewhere on this forum, Christianity is intensely scrutinized, while other ideologies--many with far more evident weaknesses than those that you believe to exist within Christianity--get a pass.

I am not as confronted by other ideologues, dominant in our culture yet trying to become all-controlling, as I am by christians.

I respond more directly to self-professed christians than other sectarians because they impose (or attempt to impose) on my life more. If I were in the Gaza, I'd have a different target, different if I were in Istanbul.

I don't claim to know your personal experience, but I find it difficult to believe this coming from a person who I assume spends most of his life in a recording studio with rock bands. My experience in music, particularly rock music, is that it's anything but Christian dominated.

Perhaps you're speaking of the public square in general. If so, I can assure you that there are other groups in the US that wield far more power and dominance than Christians. And that's despite the fact that the majority, 87% percent of Americans identify themselves as Christian. If you're bothered by whatever control Christians exercise in a Christian majority, then what of those far more powerful and controlling groups such as AIPAC and the ADL that represent the interests of a tiny minority?

steve wrote:If we are discussing A, and I call him a liar, It means nothing to say I haven't also called B a liar. We were discussing A. There may be time to get to B yet, but he's irrelevant for the moment.

But when B is never discussed despite B being at least as much a liar as A is claimed to be, then lack of objectivity and/or bias must be assumed.

ytrehalf wrote:

steve wrote:If we are discussing A, and I call him a liar, It means nothing to say I haven't also called B a liar. We were discussing A. There may be time to get to B yet, but he's irrelevant for the moment.

But when B is never discussed despite B being at least as much a liar as A is claimed to be, then lack of objectivity and/or bias must be assumed.[/quote="ytrehalf"]

Are you Jewish? Do you want Jews to be called liars? I don't get it.

That is a ludicrous statement. Here's why:

Election Year 2004

Robert:"Dude.... I hate George Bush."
Richard:"Oh yeah? Well John Kerry isn't much better."
Robert:"I didn't say anything about John Kerry. In fact, I think he's a giant douche."
Richard:"Whatever... Go hug a tree you hippy fuck."

Obviously you didn't understand when Steve explained. I hope this will give you some insight.

But when B is never discussed despite B being at least as much a liar as A is claimed to be, then lack of objectivity and/or bias must be assumed.

so, if someone mentions their feelings in regards to christianity they are then required to discuss their feelings on all religions? hell, why not all ideologies? or even food, let's apply it to food, so if i say i don't like green beans i have to then mention that i don't like brussel sprouts, spinach, cow shit, grub worms, dry wall dust, and anything else i might ingest.

but seriously, thanks for checking in from the cross.

Perhaps you're speaking of the public square in general. If so, I can assure you that there are other groups in the US that wield far more power and dominance than Christians. And that's despite the fact that the majority, 87% percent of Americans identify themselves as Christian. If you're bothered by whatever control Christians exercise in a Christian majority, then what of those far more powerful and controlling groups such as AIPAC and the ADL that represent the interests of a tiny minority?

i heard Anne Coulter say almost this exact same thing about six months ago on some "debate" (screaming match) show on Fox News. okay, the Christians are a majority. that's a given. in light of all the logocentricism in this thread, i think we can acknowledge the present Christian majority in the U.S. as fact.

to this i say: so what? who said the simple fact that they are a majority means what they are doing is right? or even that it's the best thing for our country, politically speaking? (this, of course, not being an opinion you express outwardly, but instead one that you infer in your defense of the movement. whether or not this was your intention, i cannot say, but i will argue against this intent nonetheless.)

i am a Christian. i've said this many, many times before in this forum, but i will say it again: i know all the important shit--the prayers, the creeds--by memory. i can name all the books of the bible. i taught sunday school for four years, and plummeted deeper into the bowels of God than most people could ever hope to plummet.

that having been said, i think most Christians are stupid. i don't say this in a flippant sense, but i mean truly, genuinely stupid, as in "cannot think for themselves." the problem with the Christian majority is it IS, in fact, a MINORITY being led by a few conservative fucks with an agenda. very few people in that "majority" have ever bothered to actually contemplate a few key aspects of the faith.

i'll give you my favorite example.

many people say the bible is the "infallible word of God." in other words, everything printed in the bible is good as gold, as was told from the mouth of God. well, that mouth originally spoke either Hebrew or Aramaic. then it was translated into Greek. then it was translated into Latin. then it was re-organized and parts were left out, and parts were left in. then it was translated to German, and only THEN was it translated into English.

now...if any of you have ever been to www.engrish.com, you know that things have a tendency to get lost in translation. i can only wonder how much of the bible was lost to translation (not to mention church politics) over the course of the last few thousand years, and proceed to take everything it says with a grain of salt.

i'm not even going to guess--i'm going to assume, and assume correctly--that most (understood here to mean a majority of fifty percent or more) Christians have never ever EVER considered this. and it's one of the most basic criticisms of the religion. if most people can't get over something like this and regard it accurately, how can we expect them to translate their faith accurately in other constructs of thought, like politics?

the "Christian Majority" is, in fact, a minority. end of discussion.

(oh yeah, and Chevelle... not crap.)