[quote]JeffR wrote:
pox, please keep your hard on to yourself.
I’m hetero.
Thanks.
JeffR
[/quote]
[quote]Professor X wrote:
JeffR wrote:
pox, please keep your hard on to yourself.
I’m hetero.
Thanks.
JeffR
[/quote]
Sick (but, amusing!!!)
JeffR
[quote]Professor X wrote:
The same way you think he has the right to keep posting, is the same way you shouldn’t be worried about the thread I made. So, tell me, why are you typing posts to me if you disagree with my thread? Why not just ignore my thread like you think everyone should be doing with Steve?
Who is really the hypocrite?
[/quote]
I am not worried about the thread you made. I was answering you according to your folly. That is, I was simply speaking as the foolish professor x would speak in my initial reply to your thread. That’s just too funny. You were blind as a mole to your own hypocrisy when starting this thread, but when I started speaking as professor x would speak you are very quick to point the hypocrisy out. Very interesting.
I simply responded to you in the way that you responded to steveo. To repeat–for slow-witted folk like yourself–I answered you according to the way you answered steveo. And thus, your hypocrisy remains and shines for all to see–unless of course you admit that your initial statement about steveo shoving his beliefs down people’s throats was very wrong and moronic.
To reiterate yet once more: Since I was really answering you according to your own folly, you are STILL really the hypocrite.
[quote]extol7extol wrote:
Professor X wrote:
The same way you think he has the right to keep posting, is the same way you shouldn’t be worried about the thread I made. So, tell me, why are you typing posts to me if you disagree with my thread? Why not just ignore my thread like you think everyone should be doing with Steve?
Who is really the hypocrite?
I am not worried about the thread you made. I was answering you according to your folly. That is, I was simply speaking as the foolish professor x would speak in my initial reply to your thread. That’s just too funny. You were blind as a mole to your own hypocrisy when starting this thread, but when I started speaking as professor x would speak you are very quick to point the hypocrisy out. Very interesting.
I simply responded to you in the way that you responded to steveo. To repeat–for slow-witted folk like yourself–I answered you according to the way you answered steveo. And thus, your hypocrisy remains and shines for all to see–unless of course you admit that your initial statement about steveo shoving his beliefs down people’s throats was very wrong and moronic.
To reiterate yet once more: Since I was really answering you according to your own folly, you are STILL really the hypocrite.[/quote]
Dude, I am laughing at you. Regardless of trying to act “according to my folly” (how convenient), you were still the flaming hypocrite in this thread. For the last time, you have no point as I have not made several threads day after day on this forum.
You have no point because it seems that Steveo has actually decreased his posting frequency now that everyone has discussed this OUTSIDE of his own posts.
You have no point because too many people who have been here for years agreed with many of the thoughts in this thread.
Whatever you call me, make sure that “effective” is also thrown in there for good measure…according to my folly (you really wrote that?).
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Whatever you call me, make sure that “effective” is also thrown in there for good measure…according to my folly (you really wrote that?).
[/quote]
Don’t you mean “functional”?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Dude, I am laughing at you. Regardless of trying to act “according to my folly” (how convenient), you were still the flaming hypocrite in this thread. For the last time, you have no point as I have not made several threads day after day on this forum.
You have no point because it seems that Steveo has actually decreased his posting frequency now that everyone has discussed this OUTSIDE of his own posts.
You have no point because too many people who have been here for years agreed with many of the thoughts in this thread.
Whatever you call me, make sure that “effective” is also thrown in there for good measure…according to my folly (you really wrote that?).
[/quote]
My whole point was that when Steveo posts “several threads day after day” he is NOT shoving his personal beliefs down your throat (or anyone elses). You had asserted in your initial post that he is doing the aforemention “shoving.” You are wrong. And thus you need to edit your intial post and delete the part where you mention this “shoving.”
I answered you according to YOUR folly in my first response by basically saying that if Steveo was “shoving his beliefs” then so were you. I am aware that he posted SEVERAL, while you did not. My point is that SEVERAL threads does NOT equal shoving beliefs down throats.
You seem to think it does—you are wrong. Do you get it now?
[quote]extol7extol wrote:
My whole point was…
[/quote]
I seriously doubt anyone cares what your whole point was. You’ve gone on for two pages now about your lame point. Unless you are truly in the dark about what was being discussed, you are arguing semantics because it has been explained again and again that this isn’t about being FORCED to read a post.
How many times would that need to be written? You’re a doofus for even trying to make a point that no one gives a shit about.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Should we PM anyone caught replying to Steveo to explain the boycott and ask him to join?
Something like:
"Dear ,
A majority of T-Nation regulars have concluded that SteveO’s threads about God and the Bible are disruptive and are not presented to invite the free debate of ideas, but to judge and condemn aynone who doesn’t conform to SteveO’s world view.[/quote]
In this boycott letter above, are you judging and condemning Steveo for not conforming to your definition of the phrase, “free debate of ideas”? I have read through some of the threads in which you and Steveo have engaged in the “free debate of ideas.” It sure looks like both you and Steveo are engaging in this free debating of ideas. You both engage in judging and condemning the other. And you both are wrong in the ideas you hold to.
Neither you, nor Steveo conforms to the Biblical world view in which Jesus Christ reigns supreme. You think it’s a fairy tale. Steveo thinks it’s a “forcing” people to get saved or “making God the author of sin.” And thus both of you are just bickering brothers in Satan.
Score another point for the Prof, who once again has made his point ever so forcefully.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I seriously doubt anyone cares what your whole point was. You’ve gone on for two pages now about your lame point. Unless you are truly in the dark about what was being discussed, you are arguing semantics because it has been explained again and again that this isn’t about being FORCED to read a post.
[/quote]
Okay. So, If “this isn’t about being FORCED to read a post”, then WHY did you write the following?
“…and ramming your personal beliefs down everyone’s throats is the only way to save yourself?” (professor x)
IF Steveo isn’t FORCING you to read a post–since “this ISN’T about being FORCED”–THEN how is it that Steveo is “RAMMING [his] personal beliefs down everyone’s throats”??? You don’t think ramming implies forcing, eh? If this isn’t about forcing then no one is doing any ramming, doctor dunderhead.
Professor x number one:
“…and RAMMING your personal beliefs down everyone’s throats is the only way to save yourself?”
Professor x number two:
“…this isn’t about being FORCED to read a post.”
Will the real Professor x please stand up? Oh. He already has. And not only has he stood up, he is also a-walking. A walking contradiction that is.
[quote]extol7extol wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I seriously doubt anyone cares what your whole point was. You’ve gone on for two pages now about your lame point. Unless you are truly in the dark about what was being discussed, you are arguing semantics because it has been explained again and again that this isn’t about being FORCED to read a post.
Okay. So, If “this isn’t about being FORCED to read a post”, then WHY did you write the following?
“…and ramming your personal beliefs down everyone’s throats is the only way to save yourself?” (professor x)
IF Steveo isn’t FORCING you to read a post–since “this ISN’T about being FORCED”–THEN how is it that Steveo is “RAMMING [his] personal beliefs down everyone’s throats”??? You don’t think ramming implies forcing, eh? If this isn’t about forcing then no one is doing any ramming, doctor dunderhead.
Professor x number one:
“…and RAMMING your personal beliefs down everyone’s throats is the only way to save yourself?”
Professor x number two:
“…this isn’t about being FORCED to read a post.”
Will the real Professor x please stand up? Oh. He already has. And not only has he stood up, he is also a-walking. A walking contradiction that is.[/quote]
Damn you’re stupid.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
extol7extol wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I seriously doubt anyone cares what your whole point was. You’ve gone on for two pages now about your lame point. Unless you are truly in the dark about what was being discussed, you are arguing semantics because it has been explained again and again that this isn’t about being FORCED to read a post.
Okay. So, If “this isn’t about being FORCED to read a post”, then WHY did you write the following?
“…and ramming your personal beliefs down everyone’s throats is the only way to save yourself?” (professor x)
IF Steveo isn’t FORCING you to read a post–since “this ISN’T about being FORCED”–THEN how is it that Steveo is “RAMMING [his] personal beliefs down everyone’s throats”??? You don’t think ramming implies forcing, eh? If this isn’t about forcing then no one is doing any ramming, doctor dunderhead.
Professor x number one:
“…and RAMMING your personal beliefs down everyone’s throats is the only way to save yourself?”
Professor x number two:
“…this isn’t about being FORCED to read a post.”
Will the real Professor x please stand up? Oh. He already has. And not only has he stood up, he is also a-walking. A walking contradiction that is.
Damn you’re stupid.[/quote]
Extol forcefully rams his point down Prof’s throat. Prof gags out a weak “damn”.
Thank you varqanir, i know something’s official when it is a phrase in latin!
Pretty much everyone agrees with the setiment of tolerant/permissive forbearance of diversity (‘don’t go where you aren’t welcome and start a fight’) so it’s easy enough to do.
I’ve heard some really intelligent voices in here, let’s get back to the pursuit of excellence
[quote]extol7extol wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I seriously doubt anyone cares what your whole point was. You’ve gone on for two pages now about your lame point. Unless you are truly in the dark about what was being discussed, you are arguing semantics because it has been explained again and again that this isn’t about being FORCED to read a post.
Okay. So, If “this isn’t about being FORCED to read a post”, then WHY did you write the following?
“…and ramming your personal beliefs down everyone’s throats is the only way to save yourself?” (professor x)
IF Steveo isn’t FORCING you to read a post–since “this ISN’T about being FORCED”–THEN how is it that Steveo is “RAMMING [his] personal beliefs down everyone’s throats”??? You don’t think ramming implies forcing, eh? If this isn’t about forcing then no one is doing any ramming, doctor dunderhead.
Professor x number one:
“…and RAMMING your personal beliefs down everyone’s throats is the only way to save yourself?”
Professor x number two:
“…this isn’t about being FORCED to read a post.”
Will the real Professor x please stand up? Oh. He already has. And not only has he stood up, he is also a-walking. A walking contradiction that is.[/quote]
Ouch.
[quote]extol7extol wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I seriously doubt anyone cares what your whole point was. You’ve gone on for two pages now about your lame point. Unless you are truly in the dark about what was being discussed, you are arguing semantics because it has been explained again and again that this isn’t about being FORCED to read a post.
Okay. So, If “this isn’t about being FORCED to read a post”, then WHY did you write the following?
“…and ramming your personal beliefs down everyone’s throats is the only way to save yourself?” (professor x)
IF Steveo isn’t FORCING you to read a post–since “this ISN’T about being FORCED”–THEN how is it that Steveo is “RAMMING [his] personal beliefs down everyone’s throats”??? You don’t think ramming implies forcing, eh? If this isn’t about forcing then no one is doing any ramming, doctor dunderhead.
Professor x number one:
“…and RAMMING your personal beliefs down everyone’s throats is the only way to save yourself?”
Professor x number two:
“…this isn’t about being FORCED to read a post.”
Will the real Professor x please stand up? Oh. He already has. And not only has he stood up, he is also a-walking. A walking contradiction that is.[/quote]
This is the best post on the thread.
[quote]Smitty88 wrote:
This is the best post on the thread.
[/quote]
I think that award would go to Mufasa, assuming you were being in any way serious.