Pratoman said...
Normal59 said...
142 said...
How soon you guys forget that we are not to throw in religion here. Let's not get the man's thread locked.
Forum rule #6 specifically bans "posts of an overtly political or religious nature (ie. proselyting)." For clarity, and because I don't think everyone understands that rule, religious proselytising refers to the attempt of a religious individual to convert people to their beliefs.
Unless we are now making up new rules, I don't believe that three 5's re-use/modification of the well-known Buddhist prayer is in any way proselytising.
Sidebar: I'm currently reading a biography of John Quincy Adams who ended up being unpopular as president for straddling across party lines and trying to do what was best for the country. Interestingly after being voted out of the presidency following only a single term, his Massachusetts constituents overwhelmingly voted him into the House of Representatives where he really made a name for himself (reference JFK's Profile in Courage book). He spoke repeatedly in the 1830s that "I do believe slavery to be a sin in the eyes of God" and was shouted down by southern state Representatives for proselytising, which was an unwritten rule. Was that proselytising? I don't think so in that case, either.Normal - the “ie” in the rule you quoted, means “for example”.
No.
Id est means “that is” which introduces rewording or clarification.
You have confused i.e. with e.g., or exempli gratia, which does mean “for example.”
Let’s not be making up so-called rules. A rule prohibiting proselytizing IS appropriate. Three 5s aspiring to the words of a famous Buddhist prayer, and me pointing out that I’ve seen and like that Buddhist prayer, too, is not an overtly religious provocation. Wow...
It took me a couple days to see your message to me, and now to correct your misunderstanding, because I had you on Ignore. But this morning I went into this thread without logging in and saw your note to me. It took me a few seconds to think through why I hadn’t seen this previously, and once I remembered it took a few more minutes to find the “Edit Ignored Users” button. Back “on” now.