![[TEST] Document Foundation Community](https://communitytest.documentfoundation.org/images/discourse-logo-sketch.png){kind=logo}
What you are doing is attacking, even insulting people who believe
differently from you by calling their belief system 'superstition',
rather than the normal term, 'religion'.
Atheism is just as much a 'superstition' - per your meaning - as any
other religion. Atheists simply choose to have 'faith' in the belief
that everything in the world today is just there by some random accident
of nature.
So, Philip, how about coming down off your high horse, and LET IT GO.
Phil,
Setting aside religion, superstition, and science, (and LO) may I humbly suggest that you might benefit from a lesson in common courtesy and respect, which all men and women are due, regardless of their beliefs or whether they choose to express them in a way that others find inappropriate.
Sadly, your insistence on belaboring this by insulting everyone who suggests a more tolerant approach, lacks such common courtesy.
Speaking more pragmatically, I find it ironically interesting that, in defending your position, you draw even more attention to the very proselytizing to which you object, by quoting, in full, Nasrim's original message (which I had long forgot). Were I you, I might label such a tactic, "clueless." But, I'm not, so I won't for even you deserve our courtesy and respect.
Virgil
Gentlemen,
Please take your philosophical discussion elsewhere. It is wildly off topic here, as this is a mailing list dedicated to supporting users of LibreOffice.
Thank you,
Charles.
Okay all 
If it WOULD be possible to keep the list to Users helping users that would
be great.
And if someone knows if the question from original poster has been
answered, that would be even better.
Please stop this off-topic discussion - Thanks
Yours,
Florian
Yes all is good with the OP, Nasrin indicated she had received an answer and
thanked all for the effort, especially Tom.
She also filed a couple of BZ issues on more recent LO builds, affecting
blind and limited sight users dependent on LO and the NVDA screen reader.
We're looking at them.
Stuart
Felmon,
Sure - but I will still respond as I originally did if I come across more proselytising (by anyone) . . it is inappropriate and offensive and should not be condoned or encouraged.
by one standard definition of 'proselytize'/'proselytise' your last
"ise" is English English not Yankee English . . clueless . .
ah, guess you missed the clue I was being inclusive.
several posts are guilty of it.
Then you don't understand what the word means.
I take my clue from the OED:
1. intr. To make, or seek to make, proselytes or converts; In extended use: to act as an advocate or proponent of something.
2. trans. To convert or attempt to convert from one opinion, religion, or party, etc., to another
[...]
As someone else pointed out - this was NOT a signature - it was a SERMON and completely inappropriate and offensive to me and others (and NOT because of the particular superstition being proselytised).
granted, it wasn't a signature and also the content is inappropriate.
so glad this has been settled.
f.
Hi, to all who had been participating, for some time now, in this
nonsensical religious comments. When I accepted to receive e-mails from
this user group, I thought that it could be useful whilst using Libre
Office. I never expected to become involved in religious arguments, or
being forced to read any religious preaching. In most forums everybody is
compelled to keep postings within the subject for which they were set up,
and anybody that strays from that is usually removed. Since this forum has
lost its direction (with the approval of some member that confuse tolerance
with the lack of respect for other people), it's time for me to leave.
Since this e-mail does not have the usual "unsubscribe" link, I will put it
into the "junk mail" section, where it belongs.
Have a nice day.
Phil,you wrote:
Just observation - you believe in sky fairies ....
- Albert Einstein, Erwin Schrodinger, Paul Dirac, Antony Flew, all believed in a God; as do Richard Swinburne, Francis Collins, William Lane Craig, to name just a few.
you also wrote.....
Well if you weren't clueless (which is not consistent with you believing
in fairy stories) you would have realised by now that I don't have any
and that I don't approve of others proselytising on this list . .
I hope you would not refer to any of those I've listed above as 'clueless.'
Posts like yours could easily be seen as being offensive.
/Gary
Tanstaafl,
You continue to misunderstand (I am not surprised) . . I am NOT
defending my "beliefs" I am saying clearly that a technical list is NOT
a place for proselytising on superstitions or politics or anything else
that does not have something to do with what the list if for.What you are doing is attacking,
You call it "attacking", I call it pointing out logical, childish errors of thinking.
even insulting people who believe
differently from you by calling their belief system 'superstition',
rather than the normal term, 'religion'.
What is the difference? Is there any evidence for either? No? I guess not . . so as far as I can see, MY God, Jibbers Crabst is better than your God:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ_BtZ-5O60
Atheism is just as much a 'superstition' - per your meaning - as any
other religion.
Clueless . . how can not being convinced - about an argument that has no evidence to support it - be construed as a superstition? You need a dictionary too . .
Atheists simply choose to have 'faith' in the belief
Clueless . . see above . .
that everything in the world today is just there by some random accident
of nature.
Which, until some evidence is provided to the contrary, is more logical and rational than believing in sky fairies . .
So, Philip, how about coming down off your high horse, and LET IT GO.
Get a life . . and some lessons in English, logic and rational thinking while you are at it . .
P.
Gary,
Phil,you wrote:
Just observation - you believe in sky fairies ....
- Albert Einstein, Erwin Schrodinger, Paul Dirac, Antony Flew, all
believed in a God; as do Richard Swinburne, Francis Collins, William
Lane Craig, to name just a few.you also wrote.....
Well if you weren't clueless (which is not consistent with you believing
in fairy stories) you would have realised by now that I don't have any
and that I don't approve of others proselytising on this list . .I hope you would not refer to any of those I've listed above as 'clueless.'
Being very smart or even a genius does not mean you have any "common" (more like "uncommon") sense. However, WRT your first example, people like you always claim Albert Einstein as a "believer" but in fact he did not believe in one or other of the common sky fairies that you seem to think he did - you probably know that and are just being dishonest about your claims . .
Posts like yours could easily be seen as being offensive.
The OP's post was offensive to me and shouldn't have included the sermon that it did.
P.
Virgil,
Phil,
Setting aside religion, superstition, and science, (and LO) may I
humbly suggest that you might benefit from a lesson in common courtesy
and respect, which all men and women are due, regardless of their
beliefs or whether they choose to express them in a way that others
find inappropriate.
Irrelevant - the OP was proselytising and offensive by posting a sermon which she shouldn't have - that needed to be pointed out.
Sadly, your insistence on belaboring this by insulting everyone who
suggests a more tolerant approach, lacks such common courtesy.
No discourtesy, just making the point that needed to be made and then responding to other ignorant and delusional people who feel compelled to "defend" someone else's sky fairy proselytisation because a logical attack on one sky fairy is an attack on all sky fairies . .
Speaking more pragmatically, I find it ironically interesting that, in
defending your position, you draw even more attention to the very
proselytizing to which you object, by quoting, in full, Nasrim's
original message (which I had long forgot).
"Forgot" (BTW, it should be "forgotten") or preferred to ignore? - it was clearly a sermon and could NOT, in any reasonable sense, be called a signature . . you are desperately trying to avoid dealing with that fact . .
Were I you, I might label
such a tactic, "clueless."
However, I know you don't know how to use English very well so I understand your inability to put forward rational arguments . .
But, I'm not, so I won't for even you
deserve our courtesy and respect.
That sentence doesn't make sense . . but I can translate what you are trying to say and my response is: I'm shattered if I don't have your courtesy or respect . .
P.
Charles,
Gentlemen,
Please take your philosophical discussion elsewhere. It is wildly off
topic here, as this is a mailing list dedicated to supporting users of
LibreOffice.
That is what I have been saying all along! The discussion should never have needed to occur except that the OP was proselytising with her post and email "signature" - which was inappropriate for this list and offensive to me and others.
Regards,
Phil.
Please, mr Philip Rhoades,
Obviously you are not capable to realise what you are up to.
All australians I have had the pleasure to meet, have been sympatic, intelligent,
polite, well educated and in every way kind persons.
From your writings the only conclusion is that you represent the outmostopposite end of
these qualities. No wonder there are wars in the world.
Stop behaving like a lowminded complete idiot.
At least you could from your signature delete your address – that you are from Australia!
Best regards
Pertti Rönnberg, 76 yrs/ Finland
Hello Virgil,
Closing this thread once and for all by reacting to something completely different....
Of course even from these users we (the LibreOffice project) really need folks to install the developmental and pre-releases, in parallel of course [1], both to see emerging features (or regressions) but more importantly to provide feed back to the design, development and QA process. That is an aspect of care and feeding a FOSS project that users should not abdicate. LibreOffice is a great project, please participate.
a big +1. This is an often overlooked aspect of how we should work as a community.
At the risk of sounding like a whiner, I recently tried to participate
by reporting a bug in LO's outline numbering system (bug 96733). The
triage volunteer didn't think much of my bug report and first offered
a solution. When I suggested that the proffered solution didn't work,
he responded that I shouldn't confuse my desires with what is correct
(both of which are accomplished with LaTeX). As a result, for certain
outlining work, I'm forced to use LaTeX when I would prefer to use LO,
which unfortunately doesn't work either correctly or as desired. When
attempts to participate are rebuffed, it doesn't encourage further
participation.Again, I apologize for my whining. I realize not everyone shares my priorities.
No need to apologize but perhaps to discern what may have happened there. As an avid Emacs Org-Mode user, I think I can sympathize with your problem. What I read from this issue is that some of the people who reacted to it did not feel your case was strong and could not even be called a bug. My opinion (again, someone who does not use LibreOffice as an outliner):
1. Your suggestion may make mathematical sense but it will confuse 99% of users out there. People are used to numbering conventions in documents that may not be the same one as academic papers or numbering logic. It's a broad perception, not a statement on your mathematics. If we were to "fix" the numbering, we would get 10 bug reports tomorrow yelling that we're idiots and should revert back to what everybody else uses.
2. Are you sure you're not missing out on text editors' outlining capabilities compared to LibreOffice (or any other office suite)? LibreOffice is good for taking notes of course, but perhaps not to outline different levels of notes imho.
Best,
Charles.
This will be my first and LAST message on this thread, for obvious reason.
The fact that one did something, someone else replied, or attacked, or
whatever, can happen. Once it has been pointed out that it is really,
clearly, without ambiguity, completely, totally and utterly (enough
superlatives yet?) offtopic for the list, it should stop.
If someone feels the need to have the final word in this discussion, do a
favor to *everyone else*, remove the users@global.libreoffice.org address
from your mails on this subject and deal with it like grownups. The fact
that multiple people keep sending mass replies so out of the scope of the
list is way more aggravating than whatever the topic is.
EoT for me.
Tanstaafl,
Please don't email me personally, I am a list member, and certainly
don't need to see TWO of your ridiculous rants.
You continue to misunderstand (I am not surprised) . . I am NOT
defending my "beliefs" I am saying clearly that a technical list
is NOT a place for proselytising on superstitions or politics or
anything else that does not have something to do with what the
list if for.
What you are doing is attacking,
You call it "attacking", I call it pointing out logical, childish errors
of thinking.
You call it 'pointing out logical, childish errors', which is just
megalomaniacal, condescending and insulting gobbledy-speak for 'I am
your superior, bow down and worship me, little children, as I am
all-knowing'.
even insulting people who believe differently from you by calling
their belief system 'superstition', rather than the normal term,
'religion'.
What is the difference?
One is extremely disrespectful and condescending, the other is not.
Atheism is just as much a 'superstition' - per your meaning - as any
other religion.
Clueless
Please stop calling yourself names... it is embarrassing to watch.
. . how can not being convinced- about an argument that has no
evidence to support it
That is not the definition of an atheist, nor is it what you are claiming.
- be construed as a superstition? You need a dictionary too . .
Again, talking to yourself... tisk, tisk...
You - and atheists - claim that 'there is no god'. That is much
different than saying 'I do not see enough evidence to support the
claim, therefore I choose not to 'believe'.' That is an agnostic.
So... who needs a dictionary?
*If* your argument was on point, you would be correct, but since all you
rebutted was a strawman, it is not that I need a dictionary, what is
needed is for you to gain a few ounces of humility and respect for others.
Atheists simply choose to have 'faith' in the belief
Clueless . . see above . .
Strawman, see above...
that everything in the world today is just there by some random
accident of nature.
Which, until some evidence is provided to the contrary, is more logical
and rational than believing in sky fairies . .
More condescending and insulting strawman-speak - I haven't seen anyone
other than you say anything about sky fairies...
That said, there are many non-religious scientists who are profoundly
interested in just how amazing and - 'miraculous' - life is. Maybe it is
all just one big happy accident... and maybe it isn't. But I'll ask you...
Who the F are you to tell someone else which one it is?
Get a life . . and some lessons in English, logic and rational thinking
while you are at it . .
Again, it is really embarrassing watching you talk to yourself like
this. Maybe you should see someone...
Ok, I'm done, you are now PLONKED, so respond away if you feel you must
get the past word, I won't see it, so I'm sure it'll give a big fuzzy
wet-n-warm one...
+1