Originally Posted by MarcBee (Post 795056)

Another not-so-ironic headline I just saw..

"Tens of thousands pay tribute to Ted Kennedy."

...considering the archaic definition of "paying tribute." (taxes)

:usa

Originally Posted by Irreligious (Post 795065)

The Kennedy-bashing is driving me batty, but....

Originally Posted by MarcBee (Post 795075)

Fair enough, but in some cases, a "bash" is just a party.

RIP, Mr. Kennedy. (Sincerely.)

:usa

Originally Posted by Irreligious (Post 795084)

I doubt Senator Kennedy would see the bashing as a party and you know what they say about "Do unto others"! ; )

Originally Posted by MarcBee (Post 795096)

Those are two different scenarios--what TK would think compared with what *I* would have others do unto me. If I had chosen 40 years of public life, and wielded power to change so many lives and laws, I would not expect my political enemies to change their tune upon my death. Public life extends for as long as my legacy affects people, IMO. Death or beyond, that's what I signed up for, and would take it like a MAN, albeit a dead one. (Hypothetically.)

:usa

Originally Posted by Irreligious (Post 795106)

I'm always amazed at how the "Golden Rule" is so easily explained away. Oh well, your statement about taxes was still funny.

Originally Posted by MarcBee (Post 795123)

Explained away, really? Thought I was a believer in the Golden Rule, if nothing else. You are apparently trying to invalidate my description of how I really WOULDN'T MIND being treated in death if I had chosen 40 years of powerful public service. The voices of my philosophical and political enemies rehearsing my record of actions (that they didn't like) would be a badge of honor.

In this case, the way my culture tells me to treat the memory of the dead probably exceeds the Golden Rule. I haven't bashed TK, unless you count ironic headlines as a bash.

:usa

Originally Posted by Irreligious (Post 795144)

It seemed as though you endorsed the bashing that others were doing. Maybe I misunderstood.

Originally Posted by Irreligious (Post 795144)

It seemed as though you endorsed the bashing that others were doing. .

Originally Posted by Irreligious (Post 795144)

Maybe I misunderstood.

Originally Posted by MarcBee (Post 795170)

So I'm supposed to refute everything I don't like here? And what I don't refute, I have therefore endorsed? I catch maybe 1 or 5% of postings any day. I pick and choose what to open, but I do at least read a thread I start! --except for one onminpresent, onmiscient poster I have put on ignore--unless someone else quotes him, (then he shows up. )



Or maybe not, depending on how you define "bashing" and "endorsement." So please concisely define bashing. My "bash means party" reference was supposed to imply that "bash" is SO subjective that it's possibly a pointless term to use here.

If someone reports DEMONSTRABLE evidence, complete with a Youtube clip, or actual in-context quotation, or a book citation, do you consider that bashing? Was Judas Iscariot or Herod "bashed" when their TRACK RECORD was rehearsed (presumably) shortly after death? Is it a biblical, or rather more a culture practice to always speak well of the dead?

Seems to me bashing is the word used when someone takes offense. The question should be, was the "bash" fair, in context, and adequately informed? And since "fairness" is subject to personal judgement, and saints are supposed to be able to "judge the world" acc. to Paul, it's pretty easy to just "mark them" which cause divisions without good cause. See above "pick and choose" comment, and the ignore function can help too. (You mentioned the bashing was "driving you batty," but maybe none of my business.)

:usa