Complain about Zzyzx

[Zzyzx]

.
I dedicate this thread to those who feel inclined or compelled to complain about my style of debate – those who attempt to “debate� my debating or make extensive personal comments (or attacks) rather than debating the topic of discussion.

Anyone who feels as though they have a legitimate complaint that Forum Rules and Guidelines have been violated is invited to report such infractions to the Moderating Team or Admin. That does happen from time to time, and when it does, I retract comments (with apology when appropriate).

However, many typical complaints, those that translate approximately to, “I don’t like (or disagree with) the way you debate�, can be discussed here to keep such comments from derailing debate threads. I consider most of those complaints to be unintended complements by those who cannot or will not defend or debate effectively in opposition.

I realize that it is frustrating to have someone repeatedly asking to be SHOWN that you speak truth – to have me disrespect the book you have been told by preachers and parents is “holy� or “the word of god� – to have it repeatedly pointed out that your favorite “god� is just one of thousands promoted, worshiped and/or feared by humans. I KNOW before asking that Fundamentalists cannot offer anything other than tales in stories in an ancient book to support “miracle� tales and tall tales – and that they must resort to asking that their tales be believed “on faith alone�. It must be embarrassing to have no evidence to offer.

[bernee51]

.

If you stick around JohnnyJersey, you might learn from your mistakes. You are wrong about the pronunciation and origin of the name, the history of the community and you have misused "usurped". I have no more "usurped" the name than you have when including "Jersey" in yours.

Think sweet thoughts next time you stop near Zzyzx Road to eat jerky.

Zzyzx, California (pronounced /ˈzaɪzɨks/), formerly Camp Soda and Soda Springs, is a settlement in San Bernardino County, California. It is the former site of the Zzyzx Mineral Springs and Health Spa[1] and now the site of the Desert Studies Center. The site is also the location of Lake Tuendae, originally part of the spa, and now a refuge habitat of the endangered Mohave tui chub.

Zzyzx Road is a 4.5-mile (7.2 km) long, part paved and part dirt, rural collector road in the Mojave Desert. It runs from Interstate 15 generally south to the Zzyzx settlement.

The settlement is in area code 760 and ZIP code 92309. The nearest town is Baker, California, 7 miles (11 km) north on I-15. Las Vegas, Nevada is the nearest major city, about 100 miles (160 km) northeast.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zzyzx,_California

Oh, that's right - I forgot I am dealing with someone who has a master's in Wikipedia.

Do you resent having me cite correct information and references to point out your mistakes?

Is there a TOPIC that you feel qualified to debate? How about trying to defend some of the “Christian Miracles� as being truthful and accurate tales? Perhaps you realize you can’t do so.

And I didn't use "usurp" incorrectly, and I didn't "usurp" the name "Jersey" for my name.

I was not aware of any limitations upon what name one may chose for use in an Internet forum. Perhaps you would be good enough to cite the rules that apply?

Using Jersey in my screen name is pertinent to me as it is my location.

"Jersey" is also the name of breed of milk cow -- that predates your use of the term. Do you claim association there too?

I see you are in Ozark Hot Springs,

DEAD WRONG AGAIN.

The term "Ozarks" refers to a mountain area of NW Arkansas -- with NO connection to any hot springs. I know of no city or region in Arkansas known as “Ozark Hot Springs� – perhaps you can provide a reference.

The city of Hot Springs, Arkansas is located in Central Arkansas not far from Little Rock -- in the Ouachita Mountains.

There is a city named Ozark, Arkansas in the Arkansas River Valley, but it is not associated with hot springs (to the best of my knowledge).

in your beloved Bible Belt,

Ah yes, the Bible Belt -- lovely area, forested, rolling country, small towns, low cost of living, minimal bureaucratic interference, nice people (even if most appear to be "eat up with religion"). I own a few acres at the foot of a mountain, not too far from town, with good neighbors and a no-stress lifestyle. I rather enjoy the area – more so than any other area of the Nation (based on thirty years of extensive travel and living in many different areas of the nation – including not too far from Zzyzx, California – long enough to get to know the areas and their people).

far from Zzyzx Rd. in California.

Yes, I am presently located 1470 miles from Zzyzx, California. Is that somehow material to your disapproval?

You use it as your screen name, you usurped it as it describe neither your name nor your location.

What, exactly, are the "rules" for selection of screen names and what, exactly, are the "rules" for usurp?


I do hope you stick around the forum for a while to demonstrate to readers how one argues in favor of religion (if that is what you are doing).

Are you a liberal?

OMG

Is the pope a german?

[Zzyzx]

.

Oh, that's right - I forgot I am dealing with someone who has a master's in Wikipedia.

Do you resent having me cite correct information and references to point out your mistakes?

No; what I resent is your pretending to know things when in reality it's wikipedia (or often another dubious source) that knows and you simply regurgitate it. That seems to be your modus operandi in every thread, every post.

It is evidently very frustrating and irritating that my “modus operandi� (backing my statements with reference or citation and providing accurate information -- such as about the term "Zzyzx") repeatedly shows readers that your statements are often dead wrong. However, instead of crying or complaining about it, one might consider doing a bit of research -- learning enough to avoid making frequent or careless mistakes (and thereby displaying disregard for truth and accuracy).

Research, knowledge, education, and above all “science�, are opposed by many Fundamentalists – who evidently prefer to base decisions on guess, conjecture, opinion and tales of magical characters and events “long ago and far away�.

Is there a TOPIC that you feel qualified to debate? How about trying to defend some of the “Christian Miracles� as being truthful and accurate tales? Perhaps you realize you can’t do so.

There are many topics I feel qualified to debate. I know I can defend Christian miracles as being truthful and accurate.

OKAY – when do we start? Which “miracle� will you show to be a true event?

You have made the claim that you CAN defend the tales – “put money where mouth is� would seem to apply.

From where do you come up with these weird outbursts?

How inappropriate of me in a DEBATE forum to expect Fundamentalists / Literalists to actually debate. How inappropriate to challenge them to do so.

Don’t I know that they can’t defend as truthful the favored “supernatural� cast of characters performing incredible magical feats? Don’t I know they are likely to become upset and emotional rather than trying to debate?

Yes, JohnnyJersey, I know that – and I oppose deception and fraud with which religious tales and claims are put forth as truthful when they cannot be shown to be true – and when promises or threats are made for “after you die�, that cannot be shown to be true either.

You just blurt out, from time to time, "So do YOU feel qualified to debate any TOPICS??? HUH HUH??? HUH? Why don't you Defend Bodies from the dead! Defend Talking Donkeys! Defend The SUN standing still!!! Are you AFRAID??? HUH HUH??? HUH??? HUH??? HUH?? HUH???"

My, you seem to be emotional. Why are you upset?

Which of the “miracles� would you like to defend as being a truthful story in Closely Moderated Head to Head Debate. Pick one.

Let me tell you how this feels after a while, with an example...

When I was a teen, whenever I'd go to play basketball at the town courts with my friends, there was this little kid there, about 8 or 9, I think he was slightly autistic... He always would see us coming, and we'd look at each other and roll our eyes, as he'd coming running up to us. "WHO'S gonna play me, HUH? YOU wanna play me??? HUH HUH??? HUH?? I'm GONNA BEAT YOU! I bet you don't wanna play me cuz you're SCARED!!! IS THAT WHY? HUH HUH?? HUH? WHY don't you PLAY ME??? Do ANY of you think you can PLAY ME??? HUH HUH??? HUH??? HUH???

Then we'd play him, and beat him, and he'd change things up... "YOU were OUTTA BOUNDS! NO That was a FOW-WELL!!! A FOW-WELL!!!!! I WON! YOU can't WIN you do FOW-WELLS!!! I WON! WANNA play again? HUH HUH??? SCARED????? TOO SCARED??? HUH HUH??? HUH???" We were as nice as could be, we'd play him, we'd let him win, but it was never enough. The kid was STARVING for attention, STARVING for a "game". Like an insatiable, energetic lap-dog who no matter how many times you throw that ball he will bring it back and expect you to do it AGAIN, over and over, again and again.

That's what it's like to constantly come in here and in any thread I post, the response comes back "SO what DO you think you're qualifed to debate? HUH HUH??? What TOPIC CAN you DEBATE??? HUH? AFRAID??? TOO SCARED??? HUH??? HUH??? HUH HUH HUH????"

Thank you for relaying your childhood experience.

You need not be so elaborate when declining a challenge – it is not a reflection on anyone’s manhood to simply decline a challenge with “no thank you�. Doing so is often a prudent move to make, particularly in debate when one cannot defend their stories and claims (or those of their favored religion) as truthful.

You declining a challenge repeatedly does not preclude others from challenging again – and it does not preclude readers from wondering why challenges to honorable debate are repeatedly declined.

So can you relax and just take the posts as they are, and stop trying to parlay every post I put up into a full-fledged, one-on-one, moderator-judged "formal" Debate??? How many times must I say "no"??? Enough's enough.

Thank you for helping me demonstrate to readers that you cannot and/or will not even attempt to debate an actual TOPIC under conditions that preclude personal comments and criticisms.

And I didn't use "usurp" incorrectly, and I didn't "usurp" the name "Jersey" for my name.

I was not aware of any limitations upon what name one may chose for use in an Internet forum. Perhaps you would be good enough to cite the rules that apply?

I'm using the term figuratively,

Nice duck and dodge.

as should be obvious from my context. Then again, I should know by now that context is not your strong point.

Correction: “figurative� is not my strong point – along with fiction, false and fraud. I leave those to others.

Using Jersey in my screen name is pertinent to me as it is my location.

"Jersey" is also the name of breed of milk cow -- that predates your use of the term. Do you claim association there too?

The "Jersey" cow comes from the Isle of Jersey. Both it and my location are named after the Isle of Jersey. What's your point?

My point is that you have been quite silly, in my opinion, by criticizing my choice of screen name. Thank you for helping demonstrate that to readers.

Is there a TOPIC that you feel qualified to debate – without personal comments?

I see you are in Ozark Hot Springs,

DEAD WRONG AGAIN.

The term "Ozarks" refers to a mountain area of NW Arkansas -- with NO connection to any hot springs. I know of no city or region in Arkansas known as “Ozark Hot Springs� – perhaps you can provide a reference.

The city of Hot Springs, Arkansas is located in Central Arkansas not far from Little Rock -- in the Ouachita Mountains.

There is a city named Ozark, Arkansas in the Arkansas River Valley, but it is not associated with hot springs (to the best of my knowledge).

Like it matters. It's all the sticks, the "Bible Belt" as you lovingly refer to your home.

Does it “matter� when one in “debate� repeatedly makes mistakes? Do you think that impresses readers with one’s credibility, reliability, respect for truth and accuracy?

What is the meaning of “the sticks�? Is that intended as a demeaning or derogatory term for a person’s choice of places to live?

in your beloved Bible Belt,

Ah yes, the Bible Belt -- lovely area, forested, rolling country, small towns, low cost of living, minimal bureaucratic interference, nice people (even if most appear to be "eat up with religion"). I own a few acres at the foot of a mountain, not too far from town, with good neighbors and a no-stress lifestyle. I rather enjoy the area – more so than any other area of the Nation (based on thirty years of extensive travel and living in many different areas of the nation – including not too far from Zzyzx, California – long enough to get to know the areas and their people).

Wow, I've only ever heard you complain about the "Bible Belt". Whine and complain, a lot.

The ONLY complaint or negative comment you have seen me make regarding the Bible Belt is that it is an area where many or most people are “eat up with religion� (in context that means approximately “highly religious�).

Now, all of a sudden, it's a bucolic, lovely area, carefully selected, after 30 years of research, looking for utopia...

Have I mentioned “looking for utopia� or is that something you made up?

I think it probably helps that it's cheap as all get-out to live in Arkansas, too....

“Cheap� means something similar to “low cost of living� which I mentioned. Yes, living in rural Arkansas is quite inexpensive. Is that somehow undesirable?

Low cost of living is important to my being job-free for thirty years – after retiring at age forty – no dependence upon paycheck, no boss, no obligation to meet schedules or demands of others, no place I have to be to please others, little or no income tax, no traffic congestion, doing as I wish, associating with people I choose.

It is really “terrible� living this way. Is there an alternative that I should consider?

My wife and I do a lot of volunteer work in a food bank warehouse to provide groceries to families in need – primarily “Christian� Bible Belt residents. We don’t do that to “earn a ticket to heaven� (as do many of our fellow volunteers), but do so because we genuinely like most people (excluding a few jerks) and think it appropriate to help feed the hungry.

That is all part of our life in the Bible Belt (which can be a great place to live except for the overemphasis on religion, in my opinion). That some regard these rural areas as “the sticks� does not influence our enjoyment of the lifestyle we prefer.

far from Zzyzx Rd. in California.

Yes, I am presently located 1470 miles from Zzyzx, California. Is that somehow material to your disapproval?

You use it as your screen name, you usurped it as it describe neither your name nor your location.

What, exactly, are the "rules" for selection of screen names and what, exactly, are the "rules" for usurp?

Look up the word. Once you know the definition, see if you can understand how it would apply figuratively. If not, ask me again and I'll explain it.

Thank you for demonstrating to readers that you presume ignorance in those you “debate� (or attempt to criticize without debating), and presume superiority of your personal knowledge over that of others.

Isn’t it you who demeans people for looking up valid information to correct your mistakes and/or to support what they say? Since you evidently oppose research and citation, WHY would you suggest that someone “look up� anything?

We can simply ask you.

Fundamentalists I debate seem inclined to blur the distinction between “figurative� and “literal� – and overuse the former. Most “interpret� supernatural tales as literal – then criticize others for not doing so and for refusing to “believe on faith alone� tales told by promoters of religion.

I do hope you stick around the forum for a while to demonstrate to readers how one argues in favor of religion (if that is what you are doing).

With logic and reason?

So far, it seems quite the opposite. Refusal to debate ideas but focusing upon personal issues (including your emotional rendering of a childhood experience) is not likely to impress readers with debate ability.

I repeatedly ASK you to apply logic and reasoning to defend religious pronouncements and tales – and am repeatedly declined in favor of attempting (unsuccessfully it seems) to demean other posters.

Why would you want me to show readers that?

It could make interesting debates if you were to display logic and reasoning (and evidence) to support bible tales. Care to try?

It will make you look bad.

Any time you are ready to try that approach, I am up to the challenge. I am not easily intimidated and do not back down when challenged.

Shall we start with a CMH2H debate wherein you can REALLY show readers your deftness with logic, reasoning and evidence – or fall on your face? I expect you to bypass that excellent opportunity to make me “look bad� (perhaps realizing that you cannot).

Are you a liberal?

I do NOT identify myself as a "liberal" and do not take my positions from ANY group or "ism". Some of my ideas may parallel those of "liberals", others may be opposed to what most consider "liberal".

It is safe to say that I am not a "traditionalist" (though I may occasionally support some traditional thinking) or a "rigid thinker" (fixating on ideas from the past with inflexibility) and that I am not conformist or a proponent of "group think". It is also safe to conclude that I am not a Theist or Supernaturalist.

That seems to bother some people.

[lao tzu]

It is evidently very frustrating and irritating that my “modus operandi� (backing my statements with reference or citation and providing accurate information -- such as about the term "Zzyzx") repeatedly shows readers that your statements are often dead wrong. However, instead of crying or complaining about it ...

Okay, I see what people are complaining about. Chill, dude. Yeah, it's a debate forum. That shouldn't be confused with a "wipe your opponent's beaten, battered, bloodied and snotty nose across the cameras for all the folks at home" forum.

Someone around here greeted my first thread in Apologetics with a critique of my attitude toward my respondent, suggesting that "Those who ignore forum policies regarding civility are generally not well respected (in my opinion)." I can't quite remember the user's name, but I do recall it reminded me of the sound of bug entrails splattering away from the electric arc of a zapper.

Could be that was you. Or maybe it was your evil twin, setting up a trap for you.

As ever, Jesse

[Zzyzx]

.

Chill, dude. Yeah, it's a debate forum. That shouldn't be confused with a "wipe your opponent's beaten, battered, bloodied and snotty nose across the cameras for all the folks at home" forum.

If someone goes out of his way to provoke confrontation in a debate forum, what do you recommend?

I find no reason to "turn the other cheek" -- but leave that to pacifists to do and Christians or others to talk about.

I far prefer to debate capable representatives of theism -- those are, in my experience, Non-Christians or Moderate / Liberal Christians (who do not tend to throw bibles or insults at those who do not accept their "gods", dogma or worship rituals).

Fundamentalists / Literalists often engage in "bloody combat" wearing "the armor of god" -- bible tales and religious dogma -- with nothing more to verify pronouncements, conjectures, opinions and claims. It is not surprising that they often incur the debate equivalent of a "bloody nose" or worse.

[Zzyzx]

.
In a different forum someone once likened one of the "Crusaders for Christ" as a "punch drunk fighter staggering out at the sound of the bell, getting thoroughly trounced once again and staggering back to his corner."

That seemed like an apt description. What is his "opponent" to do -- have "mercy" on the unfortunate would-be pugilist -- and "pull punches"? Perhaps those in "his corner" should advise him to "throw in the towel" and admit that he is not capable of "defending his title" or his "gods" as the case may be.

What happened then (and often elsewhere) is that he simply failed to show up at future "matches" or declined to fight (or debate).

I make no claim to be an expert at debate (or an invincible "fighter"), but I challenge ANY Fundamentalist to defend ANY of the supernatural tales of the bible as true and accurate descriptions of characters or events that actually, literally existed or occurred in the real world.

[JohnnyJersey]

.

Oh, that's right - I forgot I am dealing with someone who has a master's in Wikipedia.

Do you resent having me cite correct information and references to point out your mistakes?

No; what I resent is your pretending to know things when in reality it's wikipedia (or often another dubious source) that knows and you simply regurgitate it. That seems to be your modus operandi in every thread, every post.

You mean, he actually backs up his claims?? Wikipedia is a good source to show you aren't making things up. Showing a source for a claim is far better in debate that making things up, don't you think?? Does he 'simply regurgitate it'?? I would say that showing a legit source for a claim is not regurgitating things, it is showing that you aren't pulling a rabbit out of the hat.

He simply regurgitates what he finds in his various google/wiki sources. This is another example. In this case, the details we are talking about are trivial and irrelevant, anyway. The fact of the matter is that "Zzyzx" is a place in california to which Zzyzx, the poster, is not connected. The details provided through his referencing Wiki are really not relevant to that fact. In other cases, however, he does simply regurgitate the same old things I've heard elsewhere, even if I've googled or wiki'ed them myself, and that doesn't do me (or anyone else) much good at all. If I want to debate google or wiki, I can do so without posting anything on this site.

I like it when people show a source for their information. It allows me to evaluate not only the claim, but the source, and to see if the source has any overt bias. I would judge wikipedia as a source in one way, and someone who uses 'storm front.org' as a source in another way. I would judge a source differently if it is the princeton university verses the ABC bible college in a different manner too.

Interesting...you like when someone shows a source, and you have apparently deemed Wikipedia a "good source".... Yet the fact remains that Wikipedia is not what would be considered a "good source" by anyone scholarly. It is open to virtually anyone for editing and alteration. Take the wiki entry on Zzyzx, for example; while I don't dispute what it says (because it's too trivial for me to care to), I only accept what it says with the knowledge that it is someone else's own idea (or several others' ideas fused together by themselves or yet another person). I take it on faith only that it is correct. So, for providing an answer where I don't care how accurate my source is, it's fine. But if I were providing an answer to another person, and I wanted to be taken seriously, I'd find another source; if I couldn't find another source and DID use wiki, I'd make it clear that it IS Wiki and therefore not a truly reliable source - it is only as reliable as the sources of those who posted there.

And here's what wiki says about itself (probably the only subject for which they are truly qualified to be the best source, by virtue of their entitlement to self-define):

The open nature of the editing model has been central to most criticism of Wikipedia. For example, a reader of an article cannot be certain that it has not been compromised by the insertion of false information or the removal of essential information. Former Encyclopædia Britannica editor-in-chief Robert McHenry once described this by saying:[61]

The user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some subject, to confirm some matter of fact, is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him. Wikipedia [is a] faith-based encyclopedia

[emphasis mine]

And, I judge someone who makes claims and doesn't back them up with either logic, or a source in yet another way.

In debate, it is the difference between supporting a claim with a reasonable legit source, and making claims you can't back up.

Going by this, the fact that you consider Wiki to be a "reasonable legit [sic] source" makes your judgment suspect. It appears to me that your response is biased.

[Goat]

Going by this, the fact that you consider Wiki to be a "reasonable legit [sic] source" makes your judgment suspect. It appears to me that your response is biased.

It is not the end all of sources, but it certainly attempts to have a non-biased point of view, and give it's sources.

That is better than making 'unsupported claims'. People who love to pull rabbits out of hats, and make unsupported claims are frustrated at people who actually back up what they say.

[JohnnyJersey]

In the age of the internet one of the greatest things life presents is the easy ability to search for answers to questions. While one may not immediately know something, the ability to seek out that knowledge is a form of knowledge itself. One does not necessarily "pretend" to know something when they present supporting data, so much as they present supporting data.

I personally would prefer one refute the data, moreso than whether a poster possessed that data (knowledge) prior to presenting it.

But, since this is a thread dedicated to picking on Zzyzx, I say Zzyzx asks too dang many uncomfortable questions

In the age of the internet, the greatest danger is that of misinformation taking root and being propogated not by valid, scholarly, academic processes but rather virally via the "interwebs" and other dubious sources. The Republicans discovered this years ago and to this day enjoy using it to their advantage.

A famous example is when they pumped out the misinformation through internet, talk radio, and other sources about Al Gore claiming to have "invented the internet". In reality, Al Gore rightfully took credit for "During [his] service in the United States Congress, [taking] the initiative in creating the Internet." There is a big difference between what he rightfully claimed credit for and what was later attributed to him to have said. But, as was evidenced in Bush's terms, that administration believed in the propaganda technique of the Big Lie, the idea that a huge lie which is always defended, even to the point of ridiculousness, will be more likely believed by the masses.

It's ironic, I'll point out, for Al Gore on more than one level: The internet he took initiative to create was responsible in large part for the viral spread of the misquote wrongly attributed to him, and that very same internet held the key for people to discover the fact that it was a misquote, yet it did him no good as the viral spread of the misquote had most people, even his own supporters, believing he made such an incredible claim as to have "invented the internet".

The internet slices both ways; it can be a great tool for research and finding factual data that serves as a legitimate source for proof, and it can be a minefield of misinformation which all too often becomes accepted through viral means, and wikipedia embodies the latter. We are sadly at the point where Wikipedia, while a great tool for personal research and investigation, is NOT a credible source but is accepted as a credible source by many. Indeed, in this thread alone, several of you have shown yourselves to believe that Wiki is a "legitimate" source; in reality, Wikipedia is only as legitimate a source as the sources from which its writers pull. The same can be said for any encyclopedia, but other encyclopedias limit contributions to those writers who are vetted appropriately and whose work is reviewed by people with proper academic authority.

[JohnnyJersey]

Going by this, the fact that you consider Wiki to be a "reasonable legit [sic] source" makes your judgment suspect. It appears to me that your response is biased.

It is not the end all of sources, but it certainly attempts to have a non-biased point of view, and give it's sources.

That is better than making 'unsupported claims'. People who love to pull rabbits out of hats, and make unsupported claims are frustrated at people who actually back up what they say.

It is not better than "unsupported claims" when its own claims are unsupported. For the Zzyzx entry, locate the sources; you'll find two, neither of which provide the bulk of the information that is presented in the article.

If you're going to try defending Wikipedia as a reasonably legitimate source, you will be hard pressed to prove it.

[JohnnyJersey]

So let me understand this....

When McCulloch tried "subtle provocation" with me by trying to use me and something personal about me as an example, it was "WIN!!!" in your opinion....

When I used an example that you took as "subtle provocation", it was not "WIN!!!!"???? Instead it was "trying to get [you] to jump into a debate" or "trying to antagonize [you]"???

Let's recap.
McCulloch was trying to provoke you by simply stating that (while you accused Zzyzx of usurping a name) you live in a place that is named after another place?
You accused someone of usurping and then someone else pointed out that the name of the place where you live could also be considerer "usurped". I found it funny so I pointed that out.

But he was wrong, so what was so funny?

Or were trying to antagonize me by piping in with "WIN!!!" for McCulloch over something that he wasn't even right about and was personal about (against) me, and if so, why the double standard??? Cry me a river...

No, i wasn't trying to antagonize you, I was laughing at the irony

But there is no irony, as he was inaccurate in saying I 'usurped' a name.

And do you really consider the name of your town and it's origins "personal"? As terrible and hurtful as a war? Would it sit well with you if I made fun of Vietnam as a response of you laughing at a simple observation about my hometown (which is also named after another place by the way)?

What was personal was the mistake that you perceived me to have made. It was at that mistake - the irony that I mistakenly used the term "usurp" so as to make myself a hypocrite - at which you laughed. I don't see you laughing at others' hypocrisy, which you (conveniently) don't notice.

]You presented yourself as a respectful poster earlier, I hope you can prove that to be true despite this incident.

I don't see any disrespect from my part, I see you blowing me laughing at an observation out of proportion.
I hope you can prove to be a respectful poster after this and after your introductory post.

I see the disrespect from you, as well as the generalizations about fundamentalists that you and others so ignorantly hurl.