[quote]jackzepplin wrote:
pookie wrote:
You’re new here, aren’t you?
Dear Newbie, it appears that you signed up in 2004, while I was a member before they were tracking membership sign-ups (probably about four or five years longer than you). So, crawl back into your hole.[/quote]
What is it with pookie’s posts and others’ reading comprehension?
Comment: “Sorry, I just thought you might go away if we ignored your attempts at being an intellectual.”
Response: “You’re new here, aren’t you?”
This was clearly not meant to be taken literally. It is a common English expression, meaning “If you think that, then you haven’t been paying attention.”
[quote]CaptainLogic wrote:
jackzepplin wrote:
If you can honestly answer, no, then I don?t believe you.
If he can HONESTLY answer no, then why the hell wouldn’t you believe him? I guess typing that into Microsoft word and reading it over didn’t work out too well for you did it?[/quote]
From a guy that calls himself boner? I don’t think I need to say much more than that. As for MS Word, do you any other suggestions for checking your spelling in a browser? I like to be thorough; otherwise, some jackass will say something idiotic like, “Der, you can’t spell?” Which is usually just an excuse for a lack of anything better to say. Huh, there is a familiar tone to your post?
This was clearly not meant to be taken literally. It is a common English expression, meaning “If you think that, then you haven’t been paying attention.”[/quote]
Wow, you’re a genius of English expression. Thank you so much for wasting valuable web space and clearing that up for me.
No, I think irrational religious beliefs are harmful even if they are not imposed on non-believers and do not directly impact non-believers. Such beliefs create an irrational mindset. If someone is firmly convinced of some fact despite a large amount of evidence to the contrary, or (figuratively speaking) puts his fingers in his ears and says “Na, na, na” whenever there is a mention of such evidence, then that person probably has little respect for evidence and logic in general.[/quote]
Nice post larryb, I agree completely. Also, since the bible is pretty ambiguous at times, it’s easy to use it as an excuse to villainize a group of people which the bible apparently denounces (ie. gays). I’ve seen many people on this site alone take advantage of this. If enough people believe this (which is the case in the States) it results in people being deprived of their rights.
[quote]jackzepplin wrote:
CaptainLogic wrote:
jackzepplin wrote:
If you can honestly answer, no, then I don?t believe you.
If he can HONESTLY answer no, then why the hell wouldn’t you believe him? I guess typing that into Microsoft word and reading it over didn’t work out too well for you did it?
From a guy that calls himself boner? I don’t think I need to say much more than that. As for MS Word, do you any other suggestions for checking your spelling in a browser? I like to be thorough; otherwise, some jackass will say something idiotic like, “Der, you can’t spell?” Which is usually just an excuse for a lack of anything better to say. Huh, there is a familiar tone to your post?[/quote]
Good job buddy. You try to use my OLD name to discredit my post, and then right after say only ‘idiots’ use spelling to discredit posts. I guess you’re the only one who is allowed ad hominem attacks?
This was clearly not meant to be taken literally. It is a common English expression, meaning “If you think that, then you haven’t been paying attention.”
Wow, you’re a genius of English expression. Thank you so much for wasting valuable web space and clearing that up for me.[/quote]
Wow, you’re a genius of sarcasm. If I respond to a post that I do not understand, you can correct me all you want and I will not be embarrassed or insulted.
Good job buddy. You try to use my OLD name to discredit my post, and then right after say only ‘idiots’ use spelling to discredit posts. I guess you’re the only one who is allowed ad hominem attacks?[/quote]
Grammar and Identity are two different things. Or, can you not understand that? You identified yourself as an Orbital Boner for quite some time. I’m not attacking you, just trying to lay out some facts, Buddy/Boner/CaptainWhatever.
[quote]jackzepplin wrote:
pookie wrote:
You’re new here, aren’t you?
Dear Newbie, it appears that you signed up in 2004, while I was a member before they were tracking membership sign-ups (probably about four or five years longer than you). So, crawl back into your hole.[/quote]
And after all those years, you still can’t argue a point? I was unaware you deflated so easily.
I say Good Year to you, sir; you’ve been but an annoying blimp on my radar.
This was clearly not meant to be taken literally. It is a common English expression, meaning “If you think that, then you haven’t been paying attention.”
Wow, you’re a genius of English expression. Thank you so much for wasting valuable web space and clearing that up for me.
Wow, you’re a genius of sarcasm. If I respond to a post that I do not understand, you can correct me all you want and I will not be embarrassed or insulted.[/quote]
Oh, but YOU should be embarrassed for not being able to comprehend the sarcasm the first time. Please take your seat, and I will call your name when I’m ready for you.
Dear Newbie, it appears that you signed up in 2004, while I was a member before they were tracking membership sign-ups (probably about four or five years longer than you). So, crawl back into your hole.
And after all those years, you still can’t argue a point? I was unaware you deflated so easily.
I say Good Year to you, sir; you’ve been but an annoying blimp on my radar.
Anyway, I’m nearly out of balloon puns.[/quote]
Please make a point worth arguing. If you make a statement worth arguing, I will gladly observe and respond. However, since your last attempt to argue my questions weren’t good enough (IMHO), I fail to see the point in taking this thread seriously.
Good job buddy. You try to use my OLD name to discredit my post, and then right after say only ‘idiots’ use spelling to discredit posts. I guess you’re the only one who is allowed ad hominem attacks?
Grammar and Identity are two different things. Or, can you not understand that? You identified yourself as an Orbital Boner for quite some time. I’m not attacking you, just trying to lay out some facts, Buddy/Boner/CaptainWhatever.[/quote]
Or could it be ‘an excuse for a lack of anything better to say’? It’s not every day someone gets owned by every single person they try and argue with, but you seem to have accomplished that feat quite nicely.
As a consolation, I heard they reserved special places in heaven for stupid people because ‘they’re like animals in their innocence’.
Good job buddy. You try to use my OLD name to discredit my post, and then right after say only ‘idiots’ use spelling to discredit posts. I guess you’re the only one who is allowed ad hominem attacks?
Grammar and Identity are two different things. Or, can you not understand that? You identified yourself as an Orbital Boner for quite some time. I’m not attacking you, just trying to lay out some facts, Buddy/Boner/CaptainWhatever.
Or could it be ‘an excuse for a lack of anything better to say’? It’s not every day someone gets owned by every single person they try and argue with, but you seem to have accomplished that feat quite nicely.
As a consolation, I heard they reserved special places in heaven for stupid people because ‘they’re like animals in their innocence’.[/quote]
Man, that was a good one. I feel so hurt. Ouch. Tail between my legs… Ouuhh, eeehhh, you happy now? The grade school rhetoric is just funny.
As for getting back on topic; what was the topic again? Something about a Spaghetti Monster? Oh, that’s right.
ID is disguised as creationism, and creationism should be taught in the home and at your local faith based organization. Evolution is a theory, but is tangible. Therefore, we have something that we can explore further. ID is not tangible, so how can we explore it further without having “faith”. It just doesn’t make sense to teach something that relies on faith to be taught in our public education system. Not unless it is philosophy class with comparisons of Science and Religion.
Man, that was a good one. I feel so hurt. Ouch. Tail between my legs… Ouuhh, eeehhh, you happy now? The grade school rhetoric is just funny.
[/quote]
Ha, sorry, that was a bit malicious I guess. You have to admit, it is pretty funny that a post you edited in MS word had one logical fallacy and one redundancy.
Pretty much everyone on this thread agrees ID should not be taught in science class…so how the hell did it get implemented into the system?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Oh sure, the guy blowing the most hot air gets the points… what is the world coming to.[/quote]
This thread is hilarious, I was about to make a comment about having difficulty standing in here do to the swinging phallusis, but T-Mag Mod stole my thunder. Then it turns out zepp and the boys agree on the origional topic? What the heck were you boners even arguing about? Was this all started over balloon jokes?
[quote]Vegita wrote:
vroom wrote:
Oh sure, the guy blowing the most hot air gets the points… what is the world coming to.
This thread is hilarious, I was about to make a comment about having difficulty standing in here do to the swinging phallusis, but T-Mag Mod stole my thunder. Then it turns out zepp and the boys agree on the origional topic? What the heck were you boners even arguing about? Was this all started over balloon jokes?
V[/quote]
I can’t remember for sure, nor do I care to click back through the thread and read all the asinine crap. I think I was generally disgusted over the way some of these guys were trying to argue their points with ProX. ProX has graciously dropped out of the thread; probably because of the style that these guys were using to argue. The point was that ProX made a strong argument for what he believed in, and the attacks that followed were ridiculous.
No, wait, it wasn’t that. My bad. It was their overall jealously of my good looks, huge muscles, and powerful “member”. Oh, and I can out-piss anyone in a distance contest.
