the Creator tells the creation what to do.
the creation does not tell the Creator what to do.
Your argument fails.
There is no creator until proven such.
Crííost an Sláánaitheoir Fééin
Sod off nutcase.
whoo hoo. little sore spot there, eh?
get down and give me 500 push-ups, private. NOW.
I thot you might deserve a little respect, Bobin. Your behavior suggests that I was misguided. My thinking was that you might have some medical training. But it seems now that you are probably just a phlebotomist or an orderly. Both my father and my daughter were/are physicians, and neither of them act as infantile as you.
I thot you might deserve a little respect, Bobin. Your behavior suggests that I was misguided. My thinking was that you might have some medical training. But it seems now that you are probably just a phlebotomist or an orderly. Both my father and my daughter were/are physicians, and neither of them act as infantile as you.
#1. the colonel accused be of being a homophobe. this was quite an unfounded accusation., nothing i ever posted is suggestive of this. my posts explore the possibility of laws that can be enacted to cause modification of the gene pool. the colonel could have apologized or reconsidered his attitude. he did not.
#2. in my discussion with fred, the colonel claimed there is no creator. that is his opinion. i replied with my opinion, based upon the same logic offered by the colonel. this logic is fiat, ie., an authoritive declaration. if the colonel chose to have an intelligent discussion regarding this matter, he would have gotten a different response from me.
#3. the colonel told me to sod off and referred to me as a nut case. since the colonel chose the tone of the conversation, i simply responded in a manner congruent to his response.
#4. if you read my posts on the military thread, i attempted to engage in an intelligent conversation with the colonel and others in that thread, yourself included. while i don not agree entirely that an equipment list is the final determination of power, i did not slam or attack the colonel, or you, personally.
#5 logic would dictate then, that the colonel is an agressor with no prior analysis, and thereofre basis for the agression. this is, quite frankly, unbecoming behavior of a military man, and is quite dangerous for a person of military stature.
now, you.
#1. you responded to my post thinking you were responding to fred. in the past, you referred to fred as a "hairy back", and, in your post, you clearly made reference to past conversations. you can deny this if you want, but the evidence is there.
#2. you then attacked me, calling me an ignorant fool, quite ironically in a responese you clearly intended for fred. past evidence of the use of this term by you is clear evidence of this fact. you could have appologized or redirected your conversation, but you chose to continue your attack.
#3. you could have engaged in a different level of conversation, but you chose not to. this places you in the category of an agressor. you can deny this if you want, but again, the evidence is there. casual perusal of your posts throughout this forum reflect your agressive tendencies.
#4. you claim to have logical reasoning behind your posts, but, since you have chosen to be an agressor, no logical dialog with you, or the colonel for that matter, is possible. should you pursue the path of logic and abandon personal attacks, you will have a more effective stance.
#5 in reference to your last post, the colonel deserves nothing more than in infantile response.
now, fred.
#1. i happen to agree with fred regarding his opinions regarding babies, abortion, and religion. fred has a right to an opinion, so do i. your, and the colonel's opinion regarding these matters may be somewhat different. you are entitiled to your opinion as well.
#2 fred is NOT an agressor toward individials. his comments are directed toward subject matter, not people. this puts fred into the category of one who is passionate about his beliefs.
in the future, should you, or the colonel, desire to engage in intelligent conversation, i will immediately change my tone. any further agression directed toward me will result in the response it deserves. I'm sure i can learn something from both you and the colonel, and that you can perhaps learn something from me. the decision is up to you.
I thot you might deserve a little respect, Bobin. Your behavior suggests that I was misguided. My thinking was that you might have some medical training. But it seems now that you are probably just a phlebotomist or an orderly. Both my father and my daughter were/are physicians, and neither of them act as infantile as you.
#1. the colonel accused be of being a homophobe. this was quite an unfounded accusation., nothing i ever posted is suggestive of this. my posts explore the possibility of laws that can be enacted to cause modification of the gene pool. the colonel could have apologized or reconsidered his attitude. he did not.
#2. in my discussion with fred, the colonel claimed there is no creator. that is his opinion. i replied with my opinion, based upon the same logic offered by the colonel. this logic is fiat, ie., an authoritive declaration. if the colonel chose to have an intelligent discussion regarding this matter, he would have gotten a different response from me.
#3. the colonel told me to sod off and referred to me as a nut case. since the colonel chose the tone of the conversation, i simply responded in a manner congruent to his response.
#4. if you read my posts on the military thread, i attempted to engage in an intelligent conversation with the colonel and others in that thread, yourself included. while i don not agree entirely that an equipment list is the final determination of power, i did not slam or attack the colonel, or you, personally.
#5 logic would dictate then, that the colonel is an agressor with no prior analysis, and thereofre basis for the agression. this is, quite frankly, unbecoming behavior of a military man, and is quite dangerous for a person of military stature.
now, you.
#1. you responded to my post thinking you were responding to fred. in the past, you referred to fred as a "hairy back", and, in your post, you clearly made reference to past conversations. you can deny this if you want, but the evidence is there.
#2. you then attacked me, calling me an ignorant fool, quite ironically in a responese you clearly intended for fred. past evidence of the use of this term by you is clear evidence of this fact. you could have appologized or redirected your conversation, but you chose to continue your attack.
#3. you could have engaged in a different level of conversation, but you chose not to. this places you in the category of an agressor. you can deny this if you want, but again, the evidence is there. casual perusal of your posts throughout this forum reflect your agressive tendencies.
#4. you claim to have logical reasoning behind your posts, but, since you have chosen to be an agressor, no logical dialog with you, or the colonel for that matter, is possible. should you pursue the path of logic and abandon personal attacks, you will have a more effective stance.
#5 in reference to your last post, the colonel deserves nothing more than in infantile response.
now, fred.
#1. i happen to agree with fred regarding his opinions regarding babies, abortion, and religion. fred has a right to an opinion, so do i. your, and the colonel's opinion regarding these matters may be somewhat different. you are entitiled to your opinion as well.
#2 fred is NOT an agressor toward individials. his comments are directed toward subject matter, not people. this puts fred into the category of one who is passionate about his beliefs.
in the future, should you, or the colonel, desire to engage in intelligent conversation, i will immediately change my tone. any further agression directed toward me will result in the response it deserves. I'm sure i can learn something from both you and the colonel, and that you can perhaps learn something from me. the decision is up to you.
Id be surprised if anyone had any energy for intelligent conversation after that. Im almost asleep.
Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 12910 Location: United States of America
Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 3:57 pm Post subject:
Bobin wrote:
#2 fred is NOT an agressor toward individials.[/b] his comments are directed toward subject matter, not people. this puts fred into the category of one who is passionate about his beliefs.
You are correct. He doesn't address women as individuals at all. He address all women as a group. Please continue to read his comments and you'll see what females endure by his rants.... "All women are wh0res" "all college girls are unpaid wh0res" blah blah blah "spread their ho legs" blah blah. It become rather comical after a while.
Just wait until you disagree with Fred, he'll go run, hide and cry like a little girl.
#2 fred is NOT an agressor toward individials.[/b] his comments are directed toward subject matter, not people. this puts fred into the category of one who is passionate about his beliefs.
You are correct. He doesn't address women as individuals at all. He address all women as a group. Please continue to read his comments and you'll see what females endure by his rants.... "All women are wh0res" "all college girls are unpaid wh0res" blah blah blah "spread their ho legs" blah blah. It become rather comical after a while.
Just wait until you disagree with Fred, he'll go run, hide and cry like a little girl.
Have I ever called you a HO?
Adn Bobin is right. Although I cannot say for sure that I haven't ever gotten personal.
You are correct. He doesn't address women as individuals at all. He address all women as a group. Please continue to read his comments and you'll see what females endure by his rants.... "All women are wh0res" "all college girls are unpaid wh0res" blah blah blah "spread their ho legs" blah blah. It become rather comical after a while.
yeah ... but you see ... you like the guy anyway ... he doesn't attack you personally.
Please continue to read his comments and you'll see what females endure by his rants.... "all college girls are unpaid wh0res" blah blah blah
Just wait until you disagree with Fred, he'll go run, hide and cry like a little girl.
ok ... i disagree with fred. not all college girls are unpaid whores.
but, now that i look at it from another perspective. he didn't want to make anyone feel left out and feel bad about themself. that's probably what he was thinking, but i could be wrong.
Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 12910 Location: United States of America
Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 5:17 pm Post subject:
No offense but you are wrong. Fred is just mean and disrespectfully to women. He has a message and as you wrote, he is passionate about it. My problem with him is in his delivery of his message. He repels more than he attracts. He attacks members on here that reveal something about themselves but Fred reveals NOTHING. He plays by a different set of rules for himself.
You are correct. He doesn't address women as individuals at all. He address all women as a group. Please continue to read his comments and you'll see what females endure by his rants.... "All women are wh0res" "all college girls are unpaid wh0res" blah blah blah "spread their ho legs" blah blah. It become rather comical after a while.
yeah ... but you see ... you like the guy anyway ... he doesn't attack you personally.
Site Map
FAQ
Usergroups
Search
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Register
My Profile Space
