What's Wrong with Optimism?

#76
#76
jackaro said:
I am getting very tired of these threads calling out 'nega-vols'. We are (almost) all Vol fans on here, lets stop turning on each other. Everybody has got a right to their opinion, and no one has the right to tell me or anyone else they are not a true fan.

The truth is we are in the first year of a rebuilding process with a brutal schedule. It will more than likely get pretty darn ugly the next few weeks, brace yourself.

Please, for the love of all that is holy, STOP these silly threads where all you do is wave your pom-poms and criticize people who are bracing for a rough season.

For the record I love the Vols as much as anyone, think Dooley is the guy to bring us back, and will watch every game this season. But, my friends, the next couple of years are gonna hurt. No way around that.
Click to expand...

For the love of all that is holy? Obviously, not even a man's own words are holy. Read your own twist up on Diderot.

"....the last KING is strangled with the entrails of the last PRIEST..."

Sorry, but what is the purpose of all the misquotes these days?
 
#77
#77
bUTrosbUTrosVOLie said:
For the love of all that is holy? Obviously, not even a man's own words are holy. Read your own twist up on Diderot.

"....the last KING is strangled with the entrails of the last PRIEST..."

Sorry, but what is the purpose of all the misquotes these days?
Click to expand...

I was just trying to update to quote so it applies to modern times. In Diderot's time monarchies were the predominant form of government, so I updated it to politicians because I think it applies. Now, obviously, Diderot lived after the Protestant Revolution, but I believe that his reference to Priests was referring to those who use religion and God to justify any action. I also was in no way trying to pass this off as the original quote, but trying to relate the sentiment of what Diderot was trying to say in modern terms. If you know more about philosophy than me, and feel that this is in error, fine. Let me know and I will remove that as my signature. But I do expect a good argument from you before I do this.

As far as saying, 'for the love of all that's holy' is my way of saying 'for the love of God' without invoking His name. Many things can be considered holy, not in the strictest definition of the word, but nonetheless many things unrelated to God, the church, or religion could be considered holy. For example, the third Saturday in October can be considered a holy day. It was like I was saying 'for the love of all you hold dear, please stop'.

Obviously I struck a nerve, and I am sorry I upset you, but I am not sorry for what I said or the sentiment my signature invokes.
 
#78
#78
jackaro said:
I was just trying to update to quote so it applies to modern times. In Diderot's time monarchies were the predominant form of government, so I updated it to politicians because I think it applies. Now, obviously, Diderot lived after the Protestant Revolution, but I believe that his reference to Priests was referring to those who use religion and God to justify any action. I also was in no way trying to pass this off as the original quote, but trying to relate the sentiment of what Diderot was trying to say in modern terms. If you know more about philosophy than me, and feel that this is in error, fine. Let me know and I will remove that as my signature. But I do expect a good argument from you before I do this.

As far as saying, 'for the love of all that's holy' is my way of saying 'for the love of God' without invoking His name. Many things can be considered holy, not in the strictest definition of the word, but nonetheless many things unrelated to God, the church, or religion could be considered holy. For example, the third Saturday in October can be considered a holy day. It was like I was saying 'for the love of all you hold dear, please stop'.

Obviously I struck a nerve, and I am sorry I upset you, but I am not sorry for what I said or the sentiment my signature invokes.
Click to expand...

No, put whatever you want to as your signature. You didn't upset me...it just happened to be a misused "quote" in a long line of them that I have seen in the last several years on the internet so I said something this time. At least it wasn't like some I have seen....a quote attributed to Lincoln or Jefferson or someone in early U. S. history that they didn't even say.

I just think history and philosophy can't be made into bumper stickers...to change in order to meet some criteria...whatever criteria. "Man will never be free...until" is the first part of the quote and it is topical for his time and not meant any other way than the way he saw it. I don't think that can be "updated". Kings are not politicians and priests are not known as religious zealots, but both could be tyrants and usually were in those days. Our early leaders agreed-therefore we are not colonies of kingdoms but the United States. Relief for the average man from tyrants-the church and kings-is quite different than your reworked quote. It's also pretty important as far as our founding fathers were thinking. Those two things were number one and one-A on their lists. JMO on this.

"Sacred" might be better for the third Saturday in October, but holy works fine for me too. :eek:k:

Again, I'm not upset even slightly...I just decided to say something this time since I do like the original quote. :peace2:
 
#79
#79
I don't think anyone is overly excited about beating UT martin as some accuse people of being. I don't see anyone saying we are going to the NC now that we got Martin out of the way. The game played out like it should have and that's a good thing. No reason to not be happy about that. We caught glimpses of things that we can do better and I think that is the point of playing teams like this in the season opener. I think most people take it for what it is.
 
#80
#80
There were a number of people calling that victory over that 70%Freshman FCS team "impressive".

To that I say get real. Doesn't make me a Negavol....
 
#81
#81
There's a difference in "optimism" and downright homerism. Posting "We're going to beat Oregon, I just feel it" isn't optimism.
 
#82
#82
There's a difference in "optimism" and downright homerism. Posting "We're going to beat Oregon, I just feel it" isn't optimism.
 
#84
#84
bUTrosbUTrosVOLie said:
No, put whatever you want to as your signature. You didn't upset me...it just happened to be a misused "quote" in a long line of them that I have seen in the last several years on the internet so I said something this time. At least it wasn't like some I have seen....a quote attributed to Lincoln or Jefferson or someone in early U. S. history that they didn't even say.

I just think history and philosophy can't be made into bumper stickers...to change in order to meet some criteria...whatever criteria. "Man will never be free...until" is the first part of the quote and it is topical for his time and not meant any other way than the way he saw it. I don't think that can be "updated". Kings are not politicians and priests are not known as religious zealots, but both could be tyrants and usually were in those days. Our early leaders agreed-therefore we are not colonies of kingdoms but the United States. Relief for the average man from tyrants-the church and kings-is quite different than your reworked quote. It's also pretty important as far as our founding fathers were thinking. Those two things were number one and one-A on their lists. JMO on this.

"Sacred" might be better for the third Saturday in October, but holy works fine for me too. :eek:k:

Again, I'm not upset even slightly...I just decided to say something this time since I do like the original quote. :peace2:
Click to expand...


Fair enough. I googled the quote after I responded to you and I do think that I have taken it out of context in an inappropriate manner. I still like it, a lot, so I am going to take the part where I attribute it to Dennis Diderot out of it and let it stand on it's own. Peace brother.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top