Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Civility

Pages: (7) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 >

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,09:04    Mein Gott, she called ME "flaccid?" After all those hours I spent sweating and ...I AM INSULTED...I call the thread polizia NOW!! Luigi, da me il telefono!! -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Fractatious Posts: 103 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,09:15    Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 02 2007,02:04) Mein Gott, she called ME "flaccid?" After all those hours I spent sweating and ...I AM INSULTED...I call the thread polizia NOW!! Luigi, da me il telefono!! It was said con l' amore! Picollo fiore *commences with bodily fluid exchanges* Sweating like the asino? *blinks innocently* I think it was drowned out with snoring. L' adoro! *I'm such the Senorita Juano!"

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,09:17    Demallien, Not funny? Not funny? (Couldn't find a better image of Otter) I'm fucking hilarious lady! ;) Lordy but you are hard work. Perhaps I'm not funny to someone who has erroneously assumed (emphasis on the ass) that I am an aggressive, cowardly, condescending, bully amongst other things. But hey, since we already know that lack of ability to a) read an argument for comprehension, b) understand nuance, c) spot when someone is hostile or not, d) perform even rudimentary honest self analysis, e) be anything other than a sanctimonious hypocrite, are the boundaries of your abilities then woo hoo we're good to go! Let's play a game, you go back read my answer to b) carefully. What should happen is a "ping" noise and a little lighbulb should appear over your head. M'kay? If this doesn't happen, I'll use smaller words. I am on this forum, I don't like unwarranted abuse. If there is unwarranted abuse on this forum, I will not like it. Is it too much to expect logic 101? For someone who makes hog wild totally unsupportable inferences left and right you seem curiously incapable of making inferences that should leap off the page at you. (This is sarcasm btw, we've moved to level 2 now) The second part to the game is where you look back at the OED definition of "abuse" I posted and note than in all but a very very limited sense what Lenny has done is not "abuse". You may also note that this has been explained already. M'kay? I haven't answered a) yet because you haven't fulfilled the very simple criteria I asked for, that were prerequisite to my answering a). I know this concept confuses you, but do try harder. Louis -------------- Bye.

demallien Posts: 79 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,09:18    Quote (Fractatious @ Feb. 01 2007,08:28) Quote (Louis @ Feb. 02 2007,01:21) I want Deadman and Fractatious to be wrong about this. Woah wait a sec - I'm never wrong!  ;) 1. The other board had a good discussion going on. 2. It was brought to a screeching halt with claims of abuse. 3. Louis was considerate enough to shift that thread to a more appropriate thread. 4. Hopefully the previous thread will restart where it left off BEFORE the claims of "abuse". 5. It's almost unanimous, that most posting here will not tolerate lying or hypocrisy. 6. Censorship does not have a strong filter on this board (good). So, what is an amicable solution - making note that it would be agreeable by all? Jo, What do you think my motivation was for complaining about the abuse against Avocationist on the original thread?  I think we have clarified that I'm not Avocationist, and it's clear from the earlier posts that I was arguing against her position.   I'll give you a hint.  As you note, the thread came to a screeching halt at about the time that I called Lenny on abuse.  But the actual reason that the thread screeched to a halt, was because the person it was created for, Avocationist, left.  Now, what do you think is more likely - that Avocationist left because she was sick of being abused and insulted, or because someone had called for the abuse of her to stop?  (There are of course other possibilities - suchj as she ran away because she had no good answers to the questions being asked, but what interests me is which of the first two would rank higher on the probability list). Personally, I reckon that she'd be more likely to leave because people were insulting her than because someone was suggesting that we should perhaps, you know, STOP abusing her.  Which of course was my motivation for calling for Lenny to cool it. What are we here for if it's not to explain to people why evolution is correct, and that ID/Creationism is snake oil?   What do you think the reaction of a lurker coming in on that discussion would be Jo?  A lurker that was unsure about evolution and ID.  On one side, Avocationist arguing her case relatively politely, or the non-stop sneers and insults coming from our side.  Again, in my opinion, the undecided onlooker is going to feel much more sympathy for Avocationist than for us, and hence, much more likely to accept her point of view.  No, it's not a logical response, but that's how people are Jo.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,09:21    Jo, mmmm chipmunks. Calling Deadman flaccid....BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHA oh that's just CRUEL! DO you know what that does to a boy's confidence? Louis -------------- Bye.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,09:26    Deadman, Alsatian? Here boy! Italian, no. Greek, yes. Two parts of my very mixed heritage (Greek and British) have had the two greatest global empires humanity has ever known. Both have also had a mild penchant for spanking and buggery. I'm at least relatively sure there's no connection. Louis P.S. Il telefono, Capitaino. Que cazzo voy dio cane? (I hope I spelt that right) -------------- Bye.

demallien Posts: 79 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,09:30    Louis, a)  Who's Otter? b) I've already said that I'm willing to go with the dictionary definitions of obtuse and abuse.  I've further clarified by offering Lenny's comments as being a good example.  What more do you want?  For the present context I find that Lenny's behaviour fits very nicely under #7 of the OED definition, don't you??? c)  Why is answering yes or no to my question a) dependant on me jumping through a series of hoops.  I've demonstrated ample goodwill in trying to reply to your questions.  How about you do the same? d)  You, and others on this list keep accusing me of hypocrisy.  You wouldn't like, you know, have a quote or two to back that up would you?

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,09:31    Quote Calling Deadman flaccid....BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHA oh that's just CRUEL! DO you know what that does to a boy's confidence? I've been psychologically scarred for life. Greek? OMFG. Don't ever try to insult my ancestors again (sorry, Faid!). -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Fractatious Posts: 103 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,09:37    Quote (Louis @ Feb. 02 2007,02:21) Jo, mmmm chipmunks. Calling Deadman flaccid....BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHA oh that's just CRUEL! DO you know what that does to a boy's confidence? Louis I recant, he is a mighty tree!

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,09:46    Demallien, a) See National Lampoon's Animal House for details. b) Quote So, unless it is intended to cause injury, unless it is as a curse, or unless it is wrong, (for example) calling a proven liar a liar does not constitute abuse. The only possible hope for it being abusive is in its limited sense of being injurious in the sense of it being hurtful. I agree a proven liar may well be hurt by having this trait pointed out, but I think I could argue (and in part actually have done so above) that by far the greater abuse is that of the liar. Merely pointing this out is by far and away the lesser of the two "abuses". And this is only the case if we grant that it is abusive at all, for it can only be so in a very limited sense. Already answered here. See I told you if you read what I actually wrote you'd get the answers. The intent and accuracy matter as you yourself note when you call Deadman a "blithering idiot". c) Because I don't think you have demonstrated ANY good will, let alone AMPLE good will. You are overly touchy, accuse people of condescension, bullying, cowardice etc etc etc without base, refuse to read for comprehension (because nothing I have yet said is controversial. I haven't got to the controversial yet), complain about unwarranted abuse (which btw IS warranted) all the while commiting what YOU yourself call abuse, I could go on. d) Yes. Find 'em yourself. I'm getting bored of playing silly buggers with someone who is either a) too dishonest to examine their own actions honestly, or b) too stupid to examine their own actions honestly, and c) a sanctimonious hypocrite (look words up). Oh and BTW I like how you now speak for all lurkers. Arrogance on top of sanctimony and hypocrisy! They all would come to the same conclusions you would? Doesn't the simple fact that not everyone here HAS come to the same conclusions give you pause in your blanket claim? Guess what, some people are turned off by fostering hypocrisy and not dealing with people honestly. Louis -------------- Bye.

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,09:47    Quote You, and others on this list keep accusing me of hypocrisy.  You wouldn't like, you know, have a quote or two to back that up would you? Sure. First, I made a post generally recounting my experiences with similar criticism on the AFDave thread. http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....1;st=60 . In that post, I specifically mentioned that I wasn't trying to insult YOU at all, demallien, yet you chose to take this tack:   Quote I get it.  You too feel that it's your right to abuse people, and you'll leap to the attack if anyone dares suggest that this sort of bevaviour should be censured I replied that this was simply not so, and that I considered that an unwarranted and insulting leap:   Quote I wasn't abusive towards you at all, yet you chose to insult me by presuming to know what my motives were? Tsk. Why do I note such similarities between your writing style and that of "Avocationist?" "  http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=14;t=4141;p=49268 Your response was to say :   Quote Oh, I didn't answer the question because I thought the question was rhetorical. Anyway, the answer is "because you're a blithering idiot". http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=49277 Now, you can't say that you used "blithering idiot" merely because you spotted one use of "honorable" and not "honourable"... or any amount of spelling differences...because anyone can alter such details in trolling. and it would be stupid to assume that such things are not done. In fact, it's been done here many times ( see the JAD examples, or DaveScot's multiple personae, or Larry Falafelman). Besides which, I didn't mention JUST spelling, but also grammar and tone. This makes you, demallien, guilty of unwarranted insult, just as you were whining about. Period. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Fractatious Posts: 103 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,09:48    Quote What do you think my motivation was for complaining about the abuse against Avocationist on the original thread? I was not actually looking for a recap - that has been recapped, and mostly to be recapped again. Unless such an analysis will contribute towards solutions.   Quote What are we here for if it's not to explain to people why evolution is correct, and that ID/Creationism is snake oil? This is exactly where intellectual honesty is required.   Quote Again, in my opinion, the undecided onlooker is going to feel much more sympathy for Avocationist than for us, and hence, much more likely to accept her point of view. On that thread under Serendipity - I *was* an onlooker, a very polite onlooker, who took up her discussion on entropy. There were others on that particular thread who were polite. That she chose to select her "aggressors" to communicate with - well, if you leap into a pit of vipers... she could just of easily been very selective on who she conversed with. That being said, there are a variety of solutions: 1. Moderators become strict and peruse each post (time consuming). 2. Moderator lays down the board laws and upholds them (which requires 1.) 3. People take responsibility for themselves on these boards and decide what they will respond to and what they wont (easiest solution). 4. Everyone becomes Mr. and Ms. Polite and communication becomes easier (asking for a miracle here).

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,09:55    Jo, Quote 4. Everyone becomes Mr. and Ms. Polite and communication becomes easier (asking for a miracle here). Not so. I am unfailingly honest, reasonable and polite to people who are unfailingly honest, reasonable and polite. I'm even unfailingly honest to people who are not unfailingly honest, reasonable and polite. Reasonable and polite might be a different matter! I'd also say that I was very far from atypical on this board in that regard. Now, should we humble few be faced with hypocrisy, dishonesty, deceit, bigotry, intellectual dishonesty, weaselling, obfuscation etc I would imagine that we might be vastly less than polite or reasonable. But, as Demallien says, it's entirely situational. Louis -------------- Bye.

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,10:01    Ahem. By the way, mon petite chou, THIS will be more accurate in the future -- Yee-Haw!: -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

demallien Posts: 79 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,10:05    Quote (Louis @ Feb. 01 2007,09:46) c) Because I don't think you have demonstrated ANY good will, let alone AMPLE good will. You are overly touchy, accuse people of condescension, bullying, cowardice etc etc etc without base, refuse to read for comprehension (because nothing I have yet said is controversial. I haven't got to the controversial yet), complain about unwarranted abuse (which btw IS warranted) all the while commiting what YOU yourself call abuse, I could go on. d) Yes. Find 'em yourself. I'm getting bored of playing silly buggers with someone who is either a) too dishonest to examine their own actions honestly, or b) too stupid to examine their own actions honestly, and c) a sanctimonious hypocrite (look words up). Oh and BTW I like how you now speak for all lurkers. Arrogance on top of sanctimony and hypocrisy! They all would come to the same conclusions you would? Doesn't the simple fact that not everyone here HAS come to the same conclusions give you pause in your blanket claim? Guess what, some people are turned off by fostering hypocrisy and not dealing with people honestly. Louis, You gave me a set of questions to answer, including trying to derive an "argument" from the long pages of drivel that you have written.  I dutifully went back through all of the garbage, and tried my best to extract the "argument".  I then explained what I had extracted, and you more or less agreed to it.  I then gave you a response to your "argument". You then moved the goalposts, insisting I had to go into further detail on the terms 'abuse' and 'obtuse'.  I told you that I accepted the dictionary definitions, and as further clarification specified that for me, Lenny's responses consituted abuse.   You insist it still wasn't enough.  I don't know what more to say to you. You have my definitions for the two words.  If you are too lazy to look up the OED definition of 'obtuse' here it is: obtuse  • adjective 1 annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand. 2 (of an angle) more than 90° and less than 180°. 3 not sharp-pointed or sharp-edged; blunt. Definition 1 is applicable here... Frankly, your refusal to answer a simple, yes/no question resembles a lot the obfuscatoray techniques of creationists when you get on to touchy questions that they don't want to answer. So how about it Louis.  Are you going to answer my question a) now?  Or are you going to move the goalposts yet again? As I thought, you aren't actually able to come up with some quotes demonstrating my hypocrisy.  If you are unable to back up the accusation, how about a retraction, or even an apology? I don't speak for all lurkers Louis.  Nor do I try to speak for all lurjers.  I was very careful to highlight that these were my OPINIONS on what lurkers might be thinking.  You are of course free to refute the opinion if you so like.   So, my question a) is still waiting for an answer Louis.  How abot it?  In your opinion, were Lenny's posts abusive or not?

Fractatious Posts: 103 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,10:12    Quote (Louis @ Feb. 02 2007,02:55) Now, should we humble few be faced with hypocrisy, dishonesty, deceit, bigotry, intellectual dishonesty, weaselling, obfuscation etc I would imagine that we might be vastly less than polite or reasonable. But, as Demallien says, it's entirely situational. Louis, Well thats where immolation is free. However, the issue isn't "should behaviour be modified to account for other posters"? The issue is, that it is obvious that people have a tolerance level before kelvin intervenes. I suppose now would be a good time to air my position as opposed to critiquing responses: Avocationist mentioned that she has taken the time to read material, learn and picked her position (here's the recap, I know - bite me). However the position was biased. It was specifically biased against evidential science/data. Of course, for those kind folks who have expended time and neuron power to learn this - encountering a person who claims or at leasts hints towards knowing the arguments, who obviously does NOT *know* the counter arguments - this becomes tedious. It becomes tedious even more so when said person keeps arguing even while admitting they may not be learned in the specific areas they are arguing with (such as Thermodynamics). I take into account that the majority of english typing people I will meet online are American, and being aware of the battle of trying to erase evolution from schools and basically attempting to create a theocratic state - that such groups will have say, a lower tolerance level than I (note: I'm good at cloaking my rage). I take into account the amount of people who have learnt biology and can speak proficiently on the topic and debate it, to encounter a person that has only perused the religious refutations against science and very little else. I take into account a need for accountability and honesty. Thus I have understanding and also share my lack of tolerance towards those who proselytize a paradigm that is one dimensional. One last thing: when attempting to berate people on behaviour and conduct (that is, abuse and insult) it does not help by calling them "blithering idiots". Not for the sheer fact that Deadman is one of the most widely learned individuals I have ever had the pleasure to meet - but that, that "don't be rude and abusive" falls over when tagged with "don't be rude and abusive, you blithering idiot".

demallien Posts: 79 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,10:14    Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 01 2007,09:47) This makes you, demallien, guilty of unwarranted insult, just as you were whining about. Period. You firstly construe my comment on what I believe your beliefs to be as an insult.  OK, stretching the definition a looooong way there matey.  You'll have to show me where the dictionary says that that's an insult. You then, fairly openly accuse me of being a sock-puppet for Avocationist - a direct attack on my integrity.  At which time, I responded that you are a blithering idiot.  This was not un unwarranted insult, but a direct response to you claiming that I was lying about my identity.   So BZZZT! No prize for you! That quote does not in any way, shape, or form demonstrate hypocrisy on my part.  But thanks for playing, LOSER!

Fractatious Posts: 103 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,10:18    Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 02 2007,03:01) Ahem. By the way, mon petit chou, THIS will be more accurate in the future -- Yee-Haw!: *laughs* mon chene puissant, I'm going to have nightmares of cactus-looking-enemas! Now I have that song "Rocketman" locked in my head *weeps*

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,10:20    Quote You then, fairly openly accuse me of being a sock-puppet for Avocationist - a direct attack on my integrity.  At which time, I responded that you are a blithering idiot.  This was not un unwarranted insult, but a direct response to you claiming that I was lying about my identity.   So BZZZT! No prize for you! That quote does not in any way, shape, or form demonstrate hypocrisy on my part.  But thanks for playing, LOSER! You may not recognize this, being somewhat inept and hypocritical, demallien...but there is a vast difference between accusing and asking. To accuse you of being x and ask if you are x are two different things. For example: "you are Belgian, you toad!" and "are you Belgian?" -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

demallien Posts: 79 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,10:23    Quote (Fractatious @ Feb. 01 2007,10:12) One last thing: when attempting to berate people on behaviour and conduct (that is, abuse and insult) it does not help by calling them "blithering idiots". Not for the sheer fact that Deadman is one of the most widely learned individuals I have ever had the pleasure to meet - but that, that "don't be rude and abusive" falls over when tagged with "don't be rude and abusive, you blithering idiot". Jo, As has been noted many, many, many times in this discussion, and as has apparently been accepted by all parties, before labelling something as abuse we need to look at the situation.  There are situations where abuse could be construed as acceptable. Take my own position for example.  I let numerous insults and abuse from Lenny slide before calling him on it.  Why?  Because one or two relatively light-on insults, such as Lenny's were, I find to be acceptable.  Perhaps not desirable, but hey, we don't live in a perfect world. But, repeated and frequent insults is one factor that will tip the scales for me.  Multiple people joining in to group bash someone is another.  Swearing is another.  Said insults being without foundation is another.  The point being that before deeming something to be abusive, the entire context needs to be taken into account. deadman is a blithering idiot if only for being dumb enough to accuse someone of being a sock puppet without any proof whatsoever.  Note, there is nothing stopping someone from being a learned blithering idiot.  The two are, sadly, not exclusive.

demallien Posts: 79 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,10:29    Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 01 2007,10:20) You may not recognize this, being somewhat inept and hypocritical, demallien...but there is a vast difference between accusing and asking. To accuse you of being x and ask if you are x are two different things. For example: "you are Belgian, you toad!" and "are you Belgian?" You may not be able to recogise this, being a blithering idiot , but stating a question, twice, in two seperate posts that you consider it possible someone is lying about their identity  is a pretty strong indicator that you think that that person is lying about their identity.  This, stated in a public forum is a pretty strong insult, and can expect to be responded to by insults. Deadman, do you have anything useful to add to this discussion?  You know, like an original idea or something?

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,10:29    Quote deadman is a blithering idiot if only for being dumb enough to accuse someone of being a sock puppet without any proof whatsoever. Again, stupid, asking and accusing are different things. I merely asked why your writing style was similar. You chose to take that as some personal affront, when in fact, there is no real way of telling you are NOT avocationist WITHOUT asking ...there are proxies that can disguise any IP. This is also a common tactic. So I asked, quite honestly and justifiably...because trolls can change both spelling and IP's. Got it? Now your next move is to say that merely asking is "blithering idiocy" because you say so. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,10:30    Demallien, Moved goalposts? Not so dear lady, not so. You "summarised" what you thought was my argument, I said that it was fair as far as it went given that I would like you to clarify what you mean by "obtuse" and "abuse". That's not moving goalposts, that's asking for clairifcation on what you mean. Given your wanton misunderstandings and pissing about with meanings of words that's not unfair to ask. Given your use of the OED definition of "obtuse" I would say NO you have not understood or summarised my argument accurately. Slowness or insensitivity is not a problem. A fact I believe I made clear ooooh quite some time ago now (like I said, READ THREAD, you're not really showing much evidence of having done this you know). As I alluded to earlier if what Lenny has done is abuse, then you calling Deadman a "blithering idiot" is abuse, just as is you calling me a "bully" etc. Needless to say I consider none of them abusive. The "blithering idiot" and "bully" comments have even more abusive character than the comments of Lenny because they have no basis in fact (outside of your doubtless charming head). As has already been explained to you at length, that something could be hurtful to a person does not make it abuse. Intent is important, as you yourself have noted. You consider your assessment of Deadman to be accurate and thus not abusive. Lenny considers his assessment of Avocationist accurate and thus not abusive. You cannot have one without the other. I'm not evading the question at all, I've explained several times on what grounds I will answer it. Those grounds are simply based on the clear futility of discussing this issue with you becasue you have repeatedly misrepresented and misunderstood my position to the point of bewildering inanity. If you cannot comprehend the argument and comments I have been making, you cannot comprehend the answer to a) I will give. Demonstrate you CAN comprehend them and your answer will be yours. Since I couldn't care one way or the other about what you might think of the answer, what possible reason could I have for evading the question other than attempting to have the issue gain some form of clarity. That is clarity as opposed to your shrill imprecations and gross lack of comprehension. How old are you? 13? Louis -------------- Bye.

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,11:10    On a final note: Quote but stating a question, twice, in two seperate posts that you consider it possible someone is lying about their identity  is a pretty strong indicator that you think that that person is lying about their identity.  This, stated in a public forum is a pretty strong insult, and can expect to be responded to by insults. Glad to see that you acknowledge your response was insulting, as I stated. Also glad to see that you've discovered that I could contribute at least one original idea ( to you) : that it's not really possible to determine if a person is adeptly trolling a forum without asking. You can consider this an insult as well, if you wish, demallien: Your use of "we" in claiming to speak for other posters, as well as your claim to speak for unknown lurkers -- along with your desire to get others to conform to your tastes in language use -- is indicative of some real control issues. You might want to talk with someone about that. *wink* -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

demallien Posts: 79 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,11:42    Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 01 2007,11:10) You can consider this an insult as well, if you wish, demallien: Your use of "we" in claiming to speak for other posters, as well as your claim to speak for unknown lurkers -- along with your desire to get others to conform to your tastes in language use -- is indicative of some real control issues. You might want to talk with someone about that. *wink* deadbeat, I've said it before, I'll say it again: get a clue, get a life.   Having done so, report bback, and I may take you seriously

Fractatious Posts: 103 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,12:13    Quote (demallien @ Feb. 02 2007,04:42) deadbeat, I've said it before, I'll say it again: get a clue, get a life.   Having done so, report bback, and I may take you seriously Bold inserted by me: that was just a childish usage of a name. Considering there was no humour in that (such as the humourous dialogue by myself, Louis and Deadman earlier) none can be picked up from this dialogue. Having said that, this would make this moot to discuss.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,12:39    Hmm. Houses. People. Glass. Stones. Throw. Not. Should. In. Rearrange into common aphorism or sentance. Louis -------------- Bye.

demallien Posts: 79 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,13:55    Quote (Louis @ Feb. 01 2007,10:30) As I alluded to earlier if what Lenny has done is abuse, then you calling Deadman a "blithering idiot" is abuse, just as is you calling me a "bully" etc. Needless to say I consider none of them abusive. Ahhh, finally a more or less clear response.  So, you don't consider Lenny's comments to be abusive.  Why you have been incapable of giving me a nice simple "no" to question a), hence avoiding the need to answer b, is completely beyond me. Now, to more important things:  A good while back you said "Let's deal with your strawman. Read back, where am I in anyway advocating, supporting or indeed performing outright abuse in the manner suggested in your pub analogy? Nowhere." I gave you back a couple of quotes showing your evident support of the use of abuse as a tactic, to which you replied "I am not advocating or defending abuse (in the case of Lenny I was saying his annoyance was justified, not his abuse. Seriously, reading for comprehension, look it up" But now we find that you do infact defend Lenny's behaviour, including his abusive comments.  You don't think those comments were abusive at all!  This is of course why I have been pushing so hard for you to answer question a). Because, finally, it would appear that I had well understood your position.  That's right,I was a hundred percent ocrrect in asserting that you support Lenny's actions.  So, I have a question or two for you Louis: 1) When you accused my of having misunderstood you, suggesting that I needed reading comprehension lessons, you already knew that you supported Lenny.  So why lie, by saying that I had misunderstood your position? 2) How many other of the cases where you have pleaded innocence of my interpretations were also lies Louis?   You are not only a bully, you are also a liar.  I now fully uunderstand that you will kick and scream at any attempt to restrict what you consider to be a right to abuse people when and as you see fit.  That's fine.  I won't bother discussing this further with you.  I'll just refer it to the moderator. I can't believe that I wasted my day arguing with a dishonest bully.  Shows me how foolish it is to give people the benefit of the doubt when my instincts are crying out the opposite.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,14:22    Quote (demallien @ Feb. 01 2007,13:55) I can't believe that I wasted my day arguing with a dishonest bully.  Shows me how foolish it is to give people the benefit of the doubt when my instincts are crying out the opposite. I would dispute that claim. You are being unfair. Bully? In what way? Dishonest? Back that up!

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2007,14:33    Oh right.  You're all so upset.  At least you don't have people making fun of you all the time.  Walk a mile in my cave before you complain... -------------- Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10 Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08 UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

Pages: (7) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard