Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

OKIsItJustMe

(21,875 posts)
29. The convention I learned years ago was the the use of all capitals was reserved for “shouting”
Thu Jan 26, 2012, 01:03 PM
Jan 2012

In the posting I replied to, a number of things were in all caps (e.g. “LOST THEIR SELF CONTROL !”)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incense

…transitive verb
  1. archaic : to cause (a passion or emotion) to become aroused
  2. to arouse the extreme anger or indignation of

    Recommendations

    0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

    Nothing like making great leaps of faith in order to... MarkCharles Jan 2012 #1
    You are right. There is very little information here about the study itself. cbayer Jan 2012 #2
    It’s amazing what you can find if you bother to look. (Isn’t it?) OKIsItJustMe Jan 2012 #4
    + 1 (nt) mr blur Jan 2012 #3
    So this really doesn't show that religion does anything, does it? Goblinmonger Jan 2012 #5
    There are so many faults in the construction of this "experiment". MarkCharles Jan 2012 #6
    How about a little common sense? OKIsItJustMe Jan 2012 #8
    A little fable perpetuated by religions as to what they CLAIM TO... MarkCharles Jan 2012 #23
    Wow! OKIsItJustMe Jan 2012 #27
    I am NOT "incensed", (in fact I don't use incense).... MarkCharles Jan 2012 #28
    The convention I learned years ago was the the use of all capitals was reserved for “shouting” OKIsItJustMe Jan 2012 #29
    Again, your "convention" which you learned "years ago" is not MarkCharles Jan 2012 #36
    Just a thought here, but once someone has called another person's cbayer Jan 2012 #30
    I appreciate how some may feel insulted by descriptions MarkCharles Jan 2012 #44
    I don't think you appreciate it at all. It appears your intent is to insult cbayer Jan 2012 #45
    That is your opinion of my "intent" but I disagree. Actually, I think MarkCharles Jan 2012 #61
    I appreciate your thoughtful response. cbayer Jan 2012 #71
    Thank you for a very respectful response, I will continue to read your... MarkCharles Jan 2012 #75
    Enjoy your lunch, Mr. Charles. cbayer Jan 2012 #76
    Well, religion IS about control, but it's just not SELF control. cleanhippie Jan 2012 #31
    We can surely see "evidence" of mental status changes... MarkCharles Jan 2012 #77
    Self-control through fear, you mean? mr blur Jan 2012 #34
    “Thinking about religion gives people more self-control…” OKIsItJustMe Jan 2012 #7
    I get that that is what they are saying Goblinmonger Jan 2012 #12
    I believe that’s why they called it, “preliminary scientific evidence” OKIsItJustMe Jan 2012 #14
    I think that is a vast overclaim, too. Goblinmonger Jan 2012 #15
    Wow! OKIsItJustMe Jan 2012 #17
    We read the paragraphs, we were not convinced that there is any... MarkCharles Jan 2012 #24
    Considering that they did NOT utilize the "scientific method" at all, it is hardly "scientific" cleanhippie Jan 2012 #32
    As MarkCharles correctly pointed out above, there is no information available cbayer Jan 2012 #38
    Its the broad-brush assumptions about what the "study" reveals that is bogus. cleanhippie Jan 2012 #40
    You really shouldn't question my credentials as a scientists, ch. cbayer Jan 2012 #42
    Then you really shouldn't make claims that this study followed the scientific method. cleanhippie Jan 2012 #43
    I have made no such claims and have no basis to make such claims. cbayer Jan 2012 #46
    I made an observation based on the available info. cleanhippie Jan 2012 #47
    I have no idea. They have not yet published their study and there is not information cbayer Jan 2012 #50
    Then you can consider my opinion to be preliminary cleanhippie Jan 2012 #53
    No cbayer Jan 2012 #54
    Uhm, okay then. cleanhippie Jan 2012 #60
    To be fair on the researchers... LeftishBrit Jan 2012 #49
    I agree. But this is a discussion board. cleanhippie Jan 2012 #52
    Of course LeftishBrit Jan 2012 #66
    Couldn't the mere process of unscrambling a jumbled sentence, any sentence, pinto Jan 2012 #9
    From the OP OKIsItJustMe Jan 2012 #11
    Ah, missed that. Thanks. pinto Jan 2012 #13
    So some sentences were familiar and some were not? n/t Goblinmonger Jan 2012 #16
    Why are you so desperate? OKIsItJustMe Jan 2012 #18
    Why are you so desperate? Goblinmonger Jan 2012 #19
    It’s really not some earth-shattering theory OKIsItJustMe Jan 2012 #20
    They throw around words that don't mean what they think they mean Goblinmonger Jan 2012 #21
    “They have test for no other options. Perhaps unscrambling pithy Mark Twain epithets…” OKIsItJustMe Jan 2012 #22
    We know because we read and see no evidence of anything other than a ... MarkCharles Jan 2012 #25
    There actually was a control condition: unscrambling of nonreligious phrases LeftishBrit Jan 2012 #70
    No, the CONTROL condition would be........ MarkCharles Jan 2012 #73
    "Hey, have a nice day. I’m done." That's a good thing. cleanhippie Jan 2012 #37
    Good for you for being done. Some *discussions* in this group are really not discussions at all. cbayer Jan 2012 #39
    Are you kidding me? Goblinmonger Jan 2012 #63
    Oh no, we can't have that. Admonishing the OP for the same thing I was admonished for cleanhippie Jan 2012 #68
    Yep. There are frequenters of this group that employ debate *techniques* cbayer Jan 2012 #74
    There is an easy solution for this, you know. cleanhippie Jan 2012 #78
    I am not saying this to pick on you personally; there are others who do it much more often LeftishBrit Jan 2012 #67
    Why is it so difficult to understand that the "simple experiements" did NOT lend ANY credence cleanhippie Jan 2012 #35
    The study of religion and its effects is fascinating. Jim__ Jan 2012 #10
    And your "evidence" for this is?.... MarkCharles Jan 2012 #26
    And your antecedent for "this" is? Jim__ Jan 2012 #33
    So "evidence" for you is equal to three authors' written opinions? MarkCharles Jan 2012 #41
    The arguments for the statements that I made are quite well-known. Jim__ Jan 2012 #59
    Arguments, in life, and in any court of law, and in science are NOT... MarkCharles Jan 2012 #62
    Evidence is offered in support of an argument. Jim__ Jan 2012 #65
    As often, the claims made go well beyond anything that the study shows LeftishBrit Jan 2012 #48
    Good analysis and right on target, imo. cbayer Jan 2012 #51
    Funny, that sounds pretty much just like what several of us said. cleanhippie Jan 2012 #55
    Doesn't sound remotely like anything several of you have said, imo. cbayer Jan 2012 #57
    Well, as I said before, you are entitled to your opinion. cleanhippie Jan 2012 #58
    So my statement about unscrambling pithy Twain sayings Goblinmonger Jan 2012 #64
    The only difference between what I said and what they said... LeftishBrit Jan 2012 #69
    The reporting of the study is the difference to which I refer. cbayer Jan 2012 #72
    Thanks. I think this is what I was groping for from a layman's pov. pinto Jan 2012 #56
    For those hoping to understand Evolutionary Religious Studies OKIsItJustMe Jan 2012 #79
    Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Queen's study finds relig...»Reply #29