[quote]Sifu wrote:
I will outlast Cockney just like I have outlasted the others like him.[/quote]
It is indeed like an UFC match. I have to say I don’t follow every move and see every blow but it is nonetheless very impressive.
Cockney, you are going to have to either lay off the Tequila or bring your guns.
; )
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Oh so because I point out that the Fox News Network is not the bastion of even handed reporting that Sifu makes it out to be I must be gay. I guess I am also secretly Islamic then for pointing out that some of the coverage of Islam on this site isn’t exactly unbiased.
Fox News has nothing to do with it. Several other things are indicating a large gaydar cross section here.
You could make a lot of money in Tijuana with a few cosmetic changes.
Great so you can’t argue with my logic so instead you decide to call me gay. That is a new one.
There was no logic to argue with, so that can’t be the reason. Reread what I actually said. Your personality traits are forming a familiar Venn diagram. That’s about all I’ll say.
For the edification of everyone else (please disregard this, CB, I don’t want you hurting your poor little head), read this:
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/052.sbt.html
The Bible, of course, does contain a part where the Israelites are told to wipe out the Canaanites. No one questions that. What seems to be lost on people is that there’s this thing called the “New Testament” revolving around a guy named Jesus who was peaceful and who advocated peace (“Love your enemies, pray for those who persecuted you.”) Also, he claimed to be the fulfillment of everything in the Old Testament, thus abrogating it.
Muslims have a doctrine of abrogation also. As Muhammad became more violent, he told his followers that his new sayings abrogate the old. Thus, Surahs 9:5 and 9:29 abrogate tons of peaceful Surahs during Muhammad’s Meccan period of revelation:
So saying “Islam is peace” is roughly equivalent to saying “War is peace.” Truly Orwellian. In fact, pretty much everything Orwell said is now coming to pass in Britain and the US.
[/quote]
So in your venn diagram, someone who doesn’t agree with you, is atheist and doesn’t equate guns with freedom must be gay? And of course for you calling someone gay is an insult because your bible tells you that it is a sin.
I don’t want to get into a theological discussion here because there is literally no point arguing with someone who will accept the existence of a supreme power on faith because they have already shown that they do not subscribe to logic.
I will just ask though, were the authors of the Old Testament wrong and therefore not inspired by God or did God change his mind as to what he wanted?
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
phaethon wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Whereas in the US, one can just switch on Fox News and be told what to believe. It is a far more straightforward system because it is available 24/7 in nice little soundbite segments.
Obviously you don’t watch FOX, because you don’t know what you are talking about. They are the only news organisation that has any kind of serious journalistic standards left. Glenn beck has been doing God’s work educationg people about Obama and all the marxists he has surrounded himself with. They are using a lot more than soundbites.
OK now I understand where you get your bullshit from. You support Glenn Beck. Is it because you just love your country so much (boohoohooo)?
Glenn is not the only source I get my bullshit from. Sometimes Bill O’Rielly has Glenn on. There is also the Red Eye. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson et Al… I support anyone who isn’t too busy sucking on Obama’s nuts to tell me what he is up to.
Fox news is doing God’s work by setting up the Tea Party marches then reporting on them but choosing to totally ignore the Gay rights march in Washington that was larger than the Tea Party marches.
Again you are misquoting and misrepresenting what I have written. I wrote “Glenn Beck is doing gods work”. Those tea parties were all over the country and they had thousands show up for them. The gay march in Washington did get covered, you obviously weren’t watching.
No offense to the gay folk, but as important as their issues are to them the issues that the tea parties are standing up for are more important and they are important for everyone including the gay folk.
The reason why I say that Glenn Beck is doing gods work is because he is showing the American people who Obama really is. Obama himself said judge him by the people he surrounds himself with. He has surrounded himself with Marxists and communists who idolize mass murderers and dictators.
Just yesterday Beck played a video of Anita Dunne giving an address to high school kids where she says her favorite political philosopher is Mao Tse Tung. Mao was the worst mass murderer in human history who turned China into a communist hell hole. Compared to Mao, Hitler was a poser. People have very good reason to be concerned when one of the president’s top white house advisors is out in public singing Mao’s praises.
I am not surprised however by your hypocracy. You turn a blind to all the Marxist internationalists and communists in the Labour and Tory parties who have ruined Britain. But you don’t forget about Nick Griffen’s past associations or alledged associations.
They are showing their serious journalistic standards by giving up more coverage to showing live an empty sidewalk where the day before a group of 20 people had protested about the song for Obama at a school than they gave up to covering 100s of thousands of people marching on Washington. They didn’t even bother to send a reporter.
They are showing serious journalistic standards by doing investigative reporting of Obama and his associates when no one else will. All the other news organisations have given Obama a pass. That is why FOX has way higher ratings than all the other news organisations. [/quote]
Fox set up the tea parties and then covered them, that is not journalism it is manipulation. They also repeatedly gave out soundbite feeds on their news programs then reported when they were repeated by their viewers at town hall meetings claiming that these were the original views of the viewers. Again, this is not quality journalism by any standard I have ever seen.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Most people in the UK and the US are freely able to move to a different area if they so choose. The vast majority of the US is very safe and comfortable to live in. Increasing the numbers of guns in the most dangerous bits is not going to be the best way to cut violence.
Ok, well since “most” and “majority” mean more than 50&, you may be correct.
But tell me, what should those who CAN’T afford to, or otherwise can’t, move to a “nicer” area, do?
What is your solution for them? Or are they “expendable?”
You are looking at this the wrong way round. What I said was that I wouldn’t choose to live somewhere where I felt I needed a gun to protect my family. And the solution to inner city violence is hardly increasing the number of guns. New York for instance managed to significantly drop the crime rate whilst at the same time tightening gun control.
The murder rate in the US has been declining for the last 17 years. In 2008 the murder rate in New York was 6.3 per 100,000 which is still higher than the national average of 5.8.
If you look at this chart the explosion in New Yorks murder rate began in the 1960’s when a lot of gun control laws got started.
And there was me thinking that the Sulivan Act dated back to 1911 but of course, you are the history scholar.
Oh and does the huge drop off in the 90s relate to the repeal of all gun control laws in the state then? Because if the increase was caused by gun control then obviously the drop must be the relaxing of gun control otherwise it would imply that something else was the cause.
There was a big upward spike in violence after the federal gun control act of 1968. The murder rate remained raised until the 90’s when states started relaxing laws to allow concealed carry. They didn’t repeal all the laws and the changes have not been uniform across the states, just as changes in crime have not been uniform across the states.[/quote]
Rubbish, you showed the graph for New York and it has no correlation to the gun laws in New York. Your hypothesis is flawed and yet again you have misrepresented history either due to ignorance or willful deception.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
FOX is a lot more even handed than MSNBC. MSNBC is owned by GE. The same GE that makes all those wonderful windmills that are going to save us from global warming after Barry gives them billions of our tax dollars.
This site does not provide coverage of Islam. Everything here is purely the views and contributions of individual members. [/quote]
Fox news these days has become scarily like the news channel in Drop the Dead Donkey, a program that used to show on UK television. Sifu, you should look for it. And by the way, it is a comedy, not real!
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Incidentally Sifu, you will just love how well this study backs up your hypothesis
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/112408164/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
Abstract
The handgun control statutes of the continental states of the USA in 1966 were coded and scaled for strictness, and strictness was found to be unrelated to the incidence of homicide (by any method) in 1960 and 1970. However, states with the stricter handgun control statutes were found to have lower suicide rates by firearm and lower suicide rates overall.
Oh wow! A whole two sentences from an abstract written by a psychologist who specializes in suicide prevention. So tell us oh great one, how does gun control prevent people from getting the urge to commit suicide? Or is it the lack of gun control laws gives people the urge to commit suicide? Which one is it? Or is it both? Or is it just a bunch of bullshit?
If guns somehow do cause people to commit suicide as your psychologist suggests why is it that there are several countries with strict gun control laws that have suicide rates much higher than the US?
[/quote]
Two sentences and you managed to miss one of them.
The handgun control statutes of the continental states of the USA in 1966 were coded and scaled for strictness, and strictness was found to be unrelated to the incidence of homicide (by any method) in 1960 and 1970.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cortes wrote:
Sifu wrote:
300andabove wrote:
Sifu just do what i did and stop arguing with people over the internet like Cockney.
Rather like talking to wall really.
I feel you. He is like talking to a wall, but that is okay. I am not concerned if I can change his mind. What does matter is there are other people following this thread. When he throws up the same old cliche arguments and I bat them down people learn something that they can carry into an arguement with others who want to use those cliches. Plus every now and then one of you delurks and puts him on the spot. Without him I wold just be preaching to the choir.
For over 800 posts I’ve been following you, Sifu. So yes, your message is coming through. Thanks.
Thank you for the encouragement. I will outlast Cockney just like I have outlasted the others like him.[/quote]
So your approach is not based around facts or logic. Just waiting for people to get bored of your ridiculous assertions and move on. Then you can claim your internet vicotry; figures.
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Guns are the ultimate instrument of control.
EXACTLY.
Without them we would be completely at the governments mercy just like in Britain.
EXACTLY.
Democracy is dying in Britain and there is very little the people can do about it.
EXACTEMENT.
Avec prescision, monsieur Sifu.
( I don’t know why I am speaking French - actually yes I do. I just feel dumb reading all the latest posts from PRCalDude and Sifu. The knowledge is pouring in. I didn’t learn this much in school. Thank you gentleman, this table has truly been a feast. I will have to re read this again to digest )
[/quote]
You might want to double check the info they post here. Sifu has a tendency to make things up on the spot using sweeping statements and then backpeddle like crazy when someone puts facts in front of him. He is particularly bad with dates and political processes.
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
Sifu wrote:
I will outlast Cockney just like I have outlasted the others like him.
It is indeed like an UFC match. I have to say I don’t follow every move and see every blow but it is nonetheless very impressive.
Cockney, you are going to have to either lay off the Tequila or bring your guns.
; )
[/quote]
Well no, in fact it is futile. I am arguing with a guy that believes in Fox News and God. Anyone that self deluded and easily led is not likely to let facts get in the way of a good argument.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Alpha F wrote:
Sifu wrote:
I will outlast Cockney just like I have outlasted the others like him.
It is indeed like an UFC match. I have to say I don’t follow every move and see every blow but it is nonetheless very impressive.
Cockney, you are going to have to either lay off the Tequila or bring your guns.
; )
Well no, in fact it is futile. I am arguing with a guy that believes in Fox News and God. Anyone that self deluded and easily led is not likely to let facts get in the way of a good argument.[/quote]
I’ll leave Fox News alone for now, but I suppose you can “prove” to us that there is no God, right? Based upon your “facts.”
It’s statements like these that are the reason that even the people on these threads that start out siding with you end up either dropping out or turning against you, fool. Your assertion that there is no God (implied) is as probable, testable and provable as anyone’s assertion that there is. And it has no bearing whatsoever on the quality of the argument being presented.
But, then again, when you’ve so little else to work with…
[quote]So in your venn diagram, someone who doesn’t agree with you, is atheist and doesn’t equate guns with freedom must be gay?
And of course for you calling someone gay is an insult because your bible tells you that it is a sin.[/quote]
LOL. I had in mind the narcissism, prissiness, etc - there is a huge narcissistic component in homosexuality. From your avatar I can tell you’re also something of a dandy. But I can also tell gay rights are extremely important to you and that you hate the Christian religion because if the things it proscribes in it, amongst other things. Sounds like someone else I’ve interacted with on this forum who can go on for pages upon pages in an effort to make everyone agree with him. I can’t say who. Plus, you gave yourself the name “Cockney Blue.” At first, I found that a bit off, but now it makes sense.
Sooooo, you decided to pack up the wife and kids and move to Mexico from the UK, huh?
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Sounds like someone else I’ve interacted with on this forum who can go on for pages upon pages in an effort to make everyone agree with him. I can’t say who. [/quote]
Lol! I can. I cannot believe I did not make the connection before, as I feel like his endless threads, too last for, like, my whole life.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
phaethon wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Whereas in the US, one can just switch on Fox News and be told what to believe. It is a far more straightforward system because it is available 24/7 in nice little soundbite segments.
Obviously you don’t watch FOX, because you don’t know what you are talking about. They are the only news organisation that has any kind of serious journalistic standards left. Glenn beck has been doing God’s work educationg people about Obama and all the marxists he has surrounded himself with. They are using a lot more than soundbites.
OK now I understand where you get your bullshit from. You support Glenn Beck. Is it because you just love your country so much (boohoohooo)?
Glenn is not the only source I get my bullshit from. Sometimes Bill O’Rielly has Glenn on. There is also the Red Eye. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson et Al… I support anyone who isn’t too busy sucking on Obama’s nuts to tell me what he is up to.
Fox news is doing God’s work by setting up the Tea Party marches then reporting on them but choosing to totally ignore the Gay rights march in Washington that was larger than the Tea Party marches.
Again you are misquoting and misrepresenting what I have written. I wrote “Glenn Beck is doing gods work”. Those tea parties were all over the country and they had thousands show up for them. The gay march in Washington did get covered, you obviously weren’t watching.
No offense to the gay folk, but as important as their issues are to them the issues that the tea parties are standing up for are more important and they are important for everyone including the gay folk.
The reason why I say that Glenn Beck is doing gods work is because he is showing the American people who Obama really is. Obama himself said judge him by the people he surrounds himself with. He has surrounded himself with Marxists and communists who idolize mass murderers and dictators.
Just yesterday Beck played a video of Anita Dunne giving an address to high school kids where she says her favorite political philosopher is Mao Tse Tung.
Mao was the worst mass murderer in human history who turned China into a communist hell hole. Compared to Mao, Hitler was a poser. People have very good reason to be concerned when one of the president’s top white house advisors is out in public singing Mao’s praises.
I am not surprised however by your hypocracy. You turn a blind to all the Marxist internationalists and communists in the Labour and Tory parties who have ruined Britain. But you don’t forget about Nick Griffen’s past associations or alledged associations.
They are showing their serious journalistic standards by giving up more coverage to showing live an empty sidewalk where the day before a group of 20 people had protested about the song for Obama at a school than they gave up to covering 100s of thousands of people marching on Washington. They didn’t even bother to send a reporter.
They are showing serious journalistic standards by doing investigative reporting of Obama and his associates when no one else will. All the other news organisations have given Obama a pass. That is why FOX has way higher ratings than all the other news organisations.
Fox set up the tea parties and then covered them, that is not journalism it is manipulation. They also repeatedly gave out soundbite feeds on their news programs then reported when they were repeated by their viewers at town hall meetings claiming that these were the original views of the viewers. Again, this is not quality journalism by any standard I have ever seen.[/quote]
No they didn’t set them up. That was a grass roots movement that cut across party lines. America is not Britain, over here we don’t think that politicians are some kind of superior class of people who are perfect and therefore not open to criticism by us lower class riff raff who don’t know what’s best for us.
Obama and the democrats are doing serious damage to this country. Socialism has been a disaster for every country where it has been tried. Your dismissing peoples genuine dissent as “manipulation” shows where your loyalties are.
When Fox news programs wnet to the tea parties and spent hours upon hours broadcasting from them that hardly counts as sound bites.
I have a suggestion for you. Why don’t you post your news source who gave you your ideas about the tea parties so we can see where you get your bullshit from?
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Incidentally Sifu, you will just love how well this study backs up your hypothesis
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/112408164/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
Abstract
The handgun control statutes of the continental states of the USA in 1966 were coded and scaled for strictness, and strictness was found to be unrelated to the incidence of homicide (by any method) in 1960 and 1970. However, states with the stricter handgun control statutes were found to have lower suicide rates by firearm and lower suicide rates overall.
Oh wow! A whole two sentences from an abstract written by a psychologist who specializes in suicide prevention. So tell us oh great one, how does gun control prevent people from getting the urge to commit suicide? Or is it the lack of gun control laws gives people the urge to commit suicide? Which one is it? Or is it both? Or is it just a bunch of bullshit?
If guns somehow do cause people to commit suicide as your psychologist suggests why is it that there are several countries with strict gun control laws that have suicide rates much higher than the US?
Two sentences and you managed to miss one of them.
The handgun control statutes of the continental states of the USA in 1966 were coded and scaled for strictness, and strictness was found to be unrelated to the incidence of homicide (by any method) in 1960 and 1970.[/quote]
You have provided nothing more than two sentences of some psychologists opinion and you are trying to play it off like you have provided something substantial. I am not going to debate two sentences of unsubstantiated opinion with you.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Alpha F wrote:
Sifu wrote:
I will outlast Cockney just like I have outlasted the others like him.
It is indeed like an UFC match. I have to say I don’t follow every move and see every blow but it is nonetheless very impressive.
Cockney, you are going to have to either lay off the Tequila or bring your guns.
; )
Well no, in fact it is futile. I am arguing with a guy that believes in Fox News and God. Anyone that self deluded and easily led is not likely to let facts get in the way of a good argument.[/quote]
You are projecting. I don’t believe in things like you do. I certainly don’t “believe” in FOX news. I have however been watching Glenn Beck since before he moved to FOX.
Glenn Beck was able to bring down Van Jones by reporting news on him that none of the other news organisations were reporting, and FOX reports on Acorn managed to get that corrupt organisation’s federal funding suspended for almost two months.
None of the other TV news organisations is doing that kind of investigative reporting. The results that they have been getting speak for themselves.
Doing god’s work is merely a figure of speech. I didn’t realize it would hurt your feelings so bad to write something that differed from your beliefs and challenges your sense of infallability and superiority.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Alpha F wrote:
Sifu wrote:
I will outlast Cockney just like I have outlasted the others like him.
It is indeed like an UFC match. I have to say I don’t follow every move and see every blow but it is nonetheless very impressive.
Cockney, you are going to have to either lay off the Tequila or bring your guns.
; )
Well no, in fact it is futile. I am arguing with a guy that believes in Fox News and God. Anyone that self deluded and easily led is not likely to let facts get in the way of a good argument.
I’ll leave Fox News alone for now, but I suppose you can “prove” to us that there is no God, right? Based upon your “facts.”
It’s statements like these that are the reason that even the people on these threads that start out siding with you end up either dropping out or turning against you, fool. Your assertion that there is no God (implied) is as probable, testable and provable as anyone’s assertion that there is. And it has no bearing whatsoever on the quality of the argument being presented.
But, then again, when you’ve so little else to work with…
[/quote]
No of course I cannot prove there is no God. That would be fallacious. You cannot prove a negative. I didn’t assert that there was no God. I just said that arguing with someone that KNOWS that there is a God and that it is in fact the God of the Christians without any sort of proof is a bit pointless because they clearly do not need any facts to support their worldview.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
So in your venn diagram, someone who doesn’t agree with you, is atheist and doesn’t equate guns with freedom must be gay?
And of course for you calling someone gay is an insult because your bible tells you that it is a sin.
LOL. I had in mind the narcissism, prissiness, etc - there is a huge narcissistic component in homosexuality. From your avatar I can tell you’re also something of a dandy. But I can also tell gay rights are extremely important to you and that you hate the Christian religion because if the things it proscribes in it, amongst other things. Sounds like someone else I’ve interacted with on this forum who can go on for pages upon pages in an effort to make everyone agree with him. I can’t say who. Plus, you gave yourself the name “Cockney Blue.” At first, I found that a bit off, but now it makes sense.
Sooooo, you decided to pack up the wife and kids and move to Mexico from the UK, huh? [/quote]
The hat gun and scarf were provided for the photo by my company. I thought it was funny and stuck it as my avatar.
Gay rights are no more important to me than any other rights.
It was just an example of how bad Fox News.
Cockney Blue is a nickname that I was given due to the football team I support and where I come from I used it on a football forum years ago and couldn’t be arsed to come up with a new online handle for other sites I joined.
My Mexican born wife and Mexican born daughter are funnily enough pretty damn happy in Mexico. Also we have a better quality of life here than we would in the UK or the US.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
No they didn’t set them up. That was a grass roots movement that cut across party lines. America is not Britain, over here we don’t think that politicians are some kind of superior class of people who are perfect and therefore not open to criticism by us lower class riff raff who don’t know what’s best for us.
Obama and the democrats are doing serious damage to this country. Socialism has been a disaster for every country where it has been tried. Your dismissing peoples genuine dissent as “manipulation” shows where your loyalties are.
When Fox news programs wnet to the tea parties and spent hours upon hours broadcasting from them that hardly counts as sound bites.
I have a suggestion for you. Why don’t you post your news source who gave you your ideas about the tea parties so we can see where you get your bullshit from?[/quote]
http://rawstory.com/rawreplay/?p=4142
http://mediamatters.org/reports/200904080025
Fox News has less credibility as a news organisation than John Stewart. A comedian on the Comedy Channel.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Incidentally Sifu, you will just love how well this study backs up your hypothesis
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/112408164/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
Abstract
The handgun control statutes of the continental states of the USA in 1966 were coded and scaled for strictness, and strictness was found to be unrelated to the incidence of homicide (by any method) in 1960 and 1970. However, states with the stricter handgun control statutes were found to have lower suicide rates by firearm and lower suicide rates overall.
Oh wow! A whole two sentences from an abstract written by a psychologist who specializes in suicide prevention. So tell us oh great one, how does gun control prevent people from getting the urge to commit suicide? Or is it the lack of gun control laws gives people the urge to commit suicide? Which one is it? Or is it both? Or is it just a bunch of bullshit?
If guns somehow do cause people to commit suicide as your psychologist suggests why is it that there are several countries with strict gun control laws that have suicide rates much higher than the US?
Two sentences and you managed to miss one of them.
The handgun control statutes of the continental states of the USA in 1966 were coded and scaled for strictness, and strictness was found to be unrelated to the incidence of homicide (by any method) in 1960 and 1970.
You have provided nothing more than two sentences of some psychologists opinion and you are trying to play it off like you have provided something substantial. I am not going to debate two sentences of unsubstantiated opinion with you. [/quote]
Well you were prepared to debate the second one, why not the first?
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Alpha F wrote:
Sifu wrote:
I will outlast Cockney just like I have outlasted the others like him.
It is indeed like an UFC match. I have to say I don’t follow every move and see every blow but it is nonetheless very impressive.
Cockney, you are going to have to either lay off the Tequila or bring your guns.
; )
Well no, in fact it is futile. I am arguing with a guy that believes in Fox News and God. Anyone that self deluded and easily led is not likely to let facts get in the way of a good argument.
You are projecting. I don’t believe in things like you do. I certainly don’t “believe” in FOX news. I have however been watching Glenn Beck since before he moved to FOX.
Glenn Beck was able to bring down Van Jones by reporting news on him that none of the other news organisations were reporting, and FOX reports on Acorn managed to get that corrupt organisation’s federal funding suspended for almost two months.
None of the other TV news organisations is doing that kind of investigative reporting. The results that they have been getting speak for themselves.
Doing god’s work is merely a figure of speech. I didn’t realize it would hurt your feelings so bad to write something that differed from your beliefs and challenges your sense of infallability and superiority. [/quote]
It is just that I have seen you on other threads holding forth about God (and getting owned for your lack of knowledge on the subject)