Conquer Club

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:That was your online dictionary, if I recall. Is that now your definition too? That it can't be a crusade unless it occurred in the 11th, 12th or 13th century?

A casual peruse of wiki indicates a crusade in the 14th Century, can that be included?

You asked me to provide some conflicts that I considered crusades. Did I not do that? Are you changing the parameters again?

I mean, I'm kind of okay with saying a conflict called "The First Crusade" is a crusade.

Also, please pm me that address. I'm just not convinced you're qualified to teach young people. There's nothing worse than unqualified teachers.

I'm asking you to pick one you consider a crusade. You didn't do that.

Hmm... okay... let me check again. Let's see if I can find it here. Ah, there it is.

thegreekdog wrote:I'm kind of okay with saying a conflict called "The First Crusade" is a crusade.

Now I'm really concerned about your students. Not only is your knowledge of history flawed considerably, but your reading comprehension skills are piss poor.

"Kind of okay" didn't really cut it for me. Are we now accepting that the first crusade was a crusade though?

I call the First Crusade a religious crusade, yes. But you used the term "we" in the question above.

Based on your definition of "religious crusade," someone living at the time of said conflict must call the conflict a "crusade." No one in the First Crusade called it a crusade, so I can only assume that you would not call the First Crusade a religious crusade. I guess, for you, the first crusade, was World War One.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

_sabotage_ wrote:Anti-Catholic, but he makes exceptions for general Christians and Muslims.

"Anti-Catholic" isn't a religion, so your position doesn't make any sense.

All this time I thought I was irreligious.Maybe the definition of what constitutes a religion is so broad now as to be effectively meaningless.

OK- TGD, we now have a point of comparison. What do you think makes this conflict different from the First Crusade in a way that makes it not a crusade?

Symmetry is a teacher?

mrswdk wrote:Symmetry is a teacher?

I teach TGD, but he is a difficult student.

Symmetry wrote:OK- TGD, we now have a point of comparison. What do you think makes this conflict different from the First Crusade in a way that makes it not a crusade?

Oh my friend, you have some questions that need answering first. Here is a sampling (I'm summing up due to the sheer volume of questions you've dodged):

(1) Please confirm that your definition of a religious crusade is one in which a contemporary of the conflict calls it a "crusade."
(2) Please confirm that based on your definition of a religious crusade, World Wars One and Two and the War in Afghanistan were religious crusades, but the First Crusade was not a religious crusade.

chang50 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

_sabotage_ wrote:Anti-Catholic, but he makes exceptions for general Christians and Muslims.

"Anti-Catholic" isn't a religion, so your position doesn't make any sense.

All this time I thought I was irreligious.Maybe the definition of what constitutes a religion is so broad now as to be effectively meaningless.

Through his shapelessness, we find Chang's shape.

mrswdk wrote:Symmetry is a teacher?

He won't be for long once he gives me the name and address of his boss.

Dear Dean:

One of your teachers has exhibited a distinct lack of what I deem to be important skills for a teacher. Symmetry regularly refuses to answer questions, which could chill the very learning that your school is trying to impart. He gives very osbcure definitions for words. For example, he thinks that a religious crusade is a conflict which someone calls a "crusade." As you and I both know, the First Crusade was never called a "crusade" by anyone participating in or alive during the conflict (rather it was called "crusade" afterward). So, weirdly, Symmetry thinks the First Crusade was not a crusade due to his definition. This is the height of incompetence. Finally, I would note that his reading comprehension skills are severely lacking. On at least two occasions recently, he quoted something that I wrote and then asked me the very question that I answered in the item that he quoted!

Best Regards,

TGD, Esquire.

mrswdk wrote:Symmetry is a teacher?

IIRC, he is/was working on his masters at some religious school. His thesis was about the lost city of Atlantis.

_sabotage_ wrote:

chang50 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

_sabotage_ wrote:Anti-Catholic, but he makes exceptions for general Christians and Muslims.

"Anti-Catholic" isn't a religion, so your position doesn't make any sense.

All this time I thought I was irreligious.Maybe the definition of what constitutes a religion is so broad now as to be effectively meaningless.

Through his shapelessness, we find Chang's shape.

And what exactly is his 'shape'?

"Heroin production in Afghanistan increased 40 times since NATO began its ‘War on Terror’ in 2001, the head of Russia’s Federal Drug Control Service stated, adding that more than 1 million people have died from Afghan heroin since then."

Perhaps too successful to be labelled a crusade.

Shapelessness is his shape.

1) No, not necessarily.
2) That is a big question, and kind of what we were going to talk about.

I appreciate that those might not be satisfactory answers, but I am willing to discuss them.

Symmetry wrote:1) No, not necessarily.
2) That is a big question, and kind of what we were going to talk about.

I appreciate that those might not be satisfactory answers, but I am willing to discuss them.

Awesome. Go right ahead.

Here is my definition of a religious crusade - A conflict in which the stated end goal of the vast majority of the combatants of one side is to claim some holy and religious artifact, place, or person from the enemy, the vast majority of whom do not practice the religion as the other party.

_sabotage_ wrote:"Heroin production in Afghanistan increased 40 times since NATO began its ‘War on Terror’ in 2001, the head of Russia’s Federal Drug Control Service stated, adding that more than 1 million people have died from Afghan heroin since then."

Perhaps too successful to be labelled a crusade.

Shapelessness is his shape.

Your statement is useless. Would you like to try again?

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:1) No, not necessarily.
2) That is a big question, and kind of what we were going to talk about.

I appreciate that those might not be satisfactory answers, but I am willing to discuss them.

Awesome. Go right ahead.

Here is my definition of a religious crusade - A conflict in which the stated end goal of the vast majority of the combatants of one side is to claim some holy and religious artifact, place, or person from the enemy, the vast majority of whom do not practice the religion as the other party.

Would getting this religious person suffice?

Chang's shaped shapelessly.

For real Sym, for real?

_sabotage_ wrote:For real Sym, for real?

It fits his definition, and was clearly an objective from the beginning.

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:1) No, not necessarily.
2) That is a big question, and kind of what we were going to talk about.

I appreciate that those might not be satisfactory answers, but I am willing to discuss them.

Awesome. Go right ahead.

Here is my definition of a religious crusade - A conflict in which the stated end goal of the vast majority of the combatants of one side is to claim some holy and religious artifact, place, or person from the enemy, the vast majority of whom do not practice the religion as the other party.

Would getting this religious person suffice?

Just to make sure I understand, Osama bin Laden is a person who is a holy and religious person of the United States?

No silly. The US&A waged war to rescue him.

2dimes wrote:No silly. The US&A waged war to rescue him.

I'm just saying. The stated reason for the medieval crusades was to "liberate" the Chrisitan "Holy Land" from the "infidels." The stated reason for the War in Afghanistan was to destroy al Qaeda. I guess what Symm is saying is that if the enemy is of a different relgiion, it's a religious crusade. But the United States is not a theocracy (neither is Afghanistan), so not sure how he gets there on that.

Symmetry wrote:

_sabotage_ wrote:For real Sym, for real?

It fits his definition, and was clearly an objective from the beginning.

It doesn't fit my definition. And unless you already knew what my definition was, it was not your objective at the beginning.

Let's add lying to your list of negative traits to send to your dean.

thegreekdog wrote:

2dimes wrote:No silly. The US&A waged war to rescue him.

I'm just saying. The stated reason for the medieval crusades was to "liberate" the Chrisitan "Holy Land" from the "infidels." The stated reason for the War in Afghanistan was to destroy al Qaeda. I guess what Symm is saying is that if the enemy is of a different relgiion, it's a religious crusade. But the United States is not a theocracy (neither is Afghanistan), so not sure how he gets there on that.

He seems to think "claiming" means killing instead of retrieving.

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:1) No, not necessarily.
2) That is a big question, and kind of what we were going to talk about.

I appreciate that those might not be satisfactory answers, but I am willing to discuss them.

Awesome. Go right ahead.

Here is my definition of a religious crusade - A conflict in which the stated end goal of the vast majority of the combatants of one side is to claim some holy and religious artifact, place, or person from the enemy, the vast majority of whom do not practice the religion as the other party.

Would getting this religious person suffice?

Just to make sure I understand, Osama bin Laden is a person who is a holy and religious person of the United States?

The US considered him a religious figure that they wanted to claim. Extraordinary measures were made to get him. If you're asking whether or not he was considered to be on the "good" side for religious purposes, then no- he was considered demonic. At least he was considered to be a religious target. That would still be religious.

But hey, crusades tend towards extremes.

It's quite obvious to anyone with at least half a brain and one experience of reading a newspaper that the US did not target bin Laden because of his religion. Can tgd stop falling for Symmetry's claptrap so that we can go back to discussing the persecution of Christians?

mrswdk wrote:It's quite obvious to anyone with half a brain and at least one experience of reading a newspaper that the US did not target bin Laden because of his religion. Can tgd stop falling for Symmetry's claptrap so that we can go back to discussing the persecution of Christians?

Perhaps TGD has more than half a brain.