Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Vent your frustration here
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 302 (411268)
07-19-2007 8:31 PM


We've all either been dealt with unfairly or think that we have at some point on this forum by one or multiple members.
This thread is about getting back in touch with those who have wronged us, and t make amends for the things we shouldn't have said.
Bitch, moan, and wail... Kicking and screaming the whole way through. BUT (and its a very big "but," as you can see), ALL of the forum rules apply.
If and when you describe some past instances where you feel that you've been unfairly criticized, please remember to follow the rules or Administrator will come in to keep order. (That includes suspensions, and possibly bannings). But that is all dependent upon each of us.
Since this is a very, very broad topic, I don't see being OT a problem, though I suppose the possibility exists. In any case, for the Admins, please pay attention to the content.
To the posters, even though this thread is to vent and I expect it to get heated, lets try not sling mud.
Well I have just about had with this forum. It seems many people, my last thread is a perfect example, can say what ever they want, at anytime they want.
Whether we like it or not, lying is not a rule at EvC. And as much as it ticks you off that someone would be so daft, there is nothing much to do about it. Not to worry though. Anyone who does this quickly discredits themselves.
You seem to get angry at your detractors to the point where you lose your own cool. You know what I say when people are debating dishonestly and mean-spirited?
I say, go ahead. Let out as much line as they want. You keep your composure and you'll see how they'll hang themselves. You don't need to hang anyone. They'll hang themselves every time.
Everytime I bring up a valid subject, it always turns into the riverrat hates gays thread, which is a total bunch of BS.
Because they're playing you like a fiddle. They do it because they know what button to push. They've exposed your soft underbelly and are now feverishly trying to discredit you, because by discrediting you, they feel as though they've elevated themselves. My suggestion: Stop giving them the rope for you to hang yourself on.
I have not brought anything on myself either. I have just stated the truth. If people can't handle the truth, then do not speak with me. Some people actually understand me, so I know it is not me.
You seem genuine to me, Riv. I believe your sincerity. Your argument makes perfect sense to me, but hey, maybe because in many ways we are like-minded. But some people truly can't fathom your rationale. You know why?
Think of it like this: You ever meet those guys or gals that are really, really jealous? They won't let their significant other out of their sight for even a New York minute. And this is completely mystifying behavior for the other person. Why do you suppose their mate acts like this? We're they born excessively jealous? We're they trampled on in previous relationships? Or are they that way because that's how they are, secretly, and that's all they know?
They only know what its like to be them. And these jealous types are jealous because they are conniving, manipulating hypocrites who do the very thing they fear will happen to them.
Now, why did I mention that?
Is it because your detractors claim that you hate, when in reality, its they who hate? And in fact, they are incapable of distinguishing the hate the sin, the love the sinner rationale because they could never bring themselves to understanding that?
So, what am I saying? I'm saying that you need to take it in stride. Remember that we're not playing by the same rules. Stop letting them get you worked up in to a frenzy.
If the admins are to do their jobs, then this should just not be tolerated, and anyone going off-topic in that vane, should face an immediate suspension.
I was going to suspend you, Berberry, and Dan the other day for content. The only reason I didn't was because Percy seemed to be very patient with every one. I didn't want to step on his toes. But after a lot of restraint, from ALL the Admins, Berberry and Dan were just egging it on.
I do not hate gays, and I am tired on being accused of it.
Do you think I like it? And I'm much more vocal and specific about it. I know I don't hate gays, because I don't anyone! I may not personally like someone, and you are entitled to such, but I don't have it in me to hate a thing.
Its no fun being misrepresented. But come to that realization that its going to happen. So they're angry to the point of chewing their own face off.... What's new?
And if things get worse, you can always leave. But leave for the right reasons, and only leave because after you've given it some considerable thought.
I've been thinking about leaving a lot lately. I'm of the belief that, even though they mock me now, I have planted enough seeds that a few will flourish, even if the rest wither and die. And then its off to a new field to spread the Word where the same thing will happen.
If you don't do it for them, then do it for the lurkers who are watching the dialogue unbeknownst to us.

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Taz, posted 07-19-2007 11:59 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 6 by ringo, posted 07-20-2007 12:51 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 22 by nator, posted 07-21-2007 8:39 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 69 by riVeRraT, posted 07-23-2007 3:50 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

AdminNem
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 302 (411269)
07-19-2007 8:33 PM


Thread moved here from the Suggestions and Questions forum.

Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 3 of 302 (411308)
07-19-2007 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
07-19-2007 8:31 PM


nem writes:
Do you think I like it? And I'm much more vocal and specific about it. I know I don't hate gays, because I don't anyone! I may not personally like someone, and you are entitled to such, but I don't have it in me to hate a thing.
I am reminded of an interview of a klan wizard I watched some time ago. Through out the entire interview, he kept going back to his claim that he doesn't "hate" people of other races. He was just trying to prevent the extinction of the white race.
I am also reminded of an interview of the Olsen twins wannabes that I watched also some time ago. They don't "hate" mud people.
In fact, I have never actually heard of a racist that actually claims he "hated" black people.
Of course you don't consider whatever it is you are feeling "hate". Our society has effectively branded that word as bad, so now all the "hate" organizations and people who "hate" specific groups of people do everything they can to tell the world that they don't actually hate.
Want me to vent my frustration? My frustration is you people just won't admit something that is all too obvious to the rest of us. If you remember my arguments at all, it's that I support people's right to free speech and free opinion. Guys, you can hate all you want and I still will leave you alone. It's when you use your hate (even though you try to label it as love or some other BS) to try to control other people's personal lives that irks me.
Look, I can tell the difference between my personal opinion and what's best for this country. Personally, I want christianity to be banned completely. But I think what's best for this country is we allow people the freedom to worship whatever the hell they want. I think drug users should be castrated (I really do). Of course, I leave people like riverrat to keep breeding. And I swear, if the democrats don't come up with better candidates than Kerry and Ed next year, I'm going to vote independent or not vote at all.
But more to a specific point. Nem, you said that sex between a 32 year old man and his mother in law who's 60 is immoral. If you want to think that's immoral, fine. You have your right to your opinion. But if you ever try to make it illegal for a 32 year old man to have sex with his 60 year old mother in law, I will fight you to the bitter end. It's their personal lives. If both sides are consenting adults, even though it disgusts me to even think about it, why should I have any right to interfere with their sex lives? Why should you?
Edited by Tazmanian Devil, : No reason given.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-19-2007 8:31 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-20-2007 9:29 AM Taz has replied
 Message 24 by bluegenes, posted 07-21-2007 11:40 AM Taz has not replied
 Message 25 by Straggler, posted 07-21-2007 11:54 AM Taz has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 302 (411363)
07-20-2007 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Taz
07-19-2007 11:59 PM


Let the venting begin
I have never actually heard of a racist that actually claims he "hated" black people.
I have, but your point is well taken nonetheless. I can only speak for myself.
Want me to vent my frustration?
Yes! That's why I opened it.
My frustration is you people just won't admit something that is all too obvious to the rest of us.
Who exactly is you people? And, can you not see the irony when its all too obvious to the rest of us that you hate me by the same deduction?
If you remember my arguments at all, it's that I support people's right to free speech and free opinion.
Then what's your objection to mine?
Guys, you can hate all you want and I still will leave you alone. It's when you use your hate (even though you try to label it as love or some other BS) to try to control other people's personal lives that irks me.
I'm not in anyone's personal life that they aren't willing to share on the forum. I'm not an activist, Taz. Never have I gone to a gay rights parade to crash it with meanspirited signs; something I strongly object to in and of itself. Never have I pushed some sort of legislature to "ban" homosexuality, nor will I, because its counter-productive. Never have I been afforded the opportunity to vote on homosexual marriage.
At most, I have expressed my opinion, something you say that you support. So, what's the problem? The problem, it seems to me, is that I don't think exactly like you.
Personally, I want christianity to be banned completely. But I think what's best for this country is we allow people the freedom to worship whatever the hell they want. I think drug users should be castrated (I really do).
Damn, castrated?!? That seems a little hardcore.
Of course, I leave people like riverrat to keep breeding. And I swear, if the democrats don't come up with better candidates than Kerry and Ed next year, I'm going to vote independent or not vote at all.
Heh... I feel the same way about the Republican party. I think the problem is that the polarization of the two parties is bordering on the extreme. And extreme in any direction seems bad to me.
Nem, you said that sex between a 32 year old man and his mother in law who's 60 is immoral. If you want to think that's immoral, fine. You have your right to your opinion. But if you ever try to make it illegal for a 32 year old man to have sex with his 60 year old mother in law, I will fight you to the bitter end. It's their personal lives. If both sides are consenting adults, even though it disgusts me to even think about it, why should I have any right to interfere with their sex lives? Why should you?
But you feel that you should have the right to interfere with the personal life of a pedophile to protect the child and society, right? Or more specifically, you want to interfere with the personal lives of drug users. And worse, if this was Burger King, you'd have it your way and castrate them.
I'm not saying the answers are easy. We have to protect society without interfering in the personal lives of many as much as possible. There are no easy answers with something like that.

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Taz, posted 07-19-2007 11:59 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Taz, posted 07-20-2007 12:57 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 20 by Nuggin, posted 07-21-2007 4:53 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 5 of 302 (411378)
07-20-2007 12:10 PM


Rrhain - do gays dream of pink sheep?
The moderation thread stopped being about moderation, but I'd like the chance to respond to this ever growing debate. It may be, that we'll never agree - but I still think there is hope.
That would be somebody who brings up bestiality in a discussion of the morality of homosexuality. After all, the claim is that the acceptance of one requires the acceptance of the other. Thus, it "leads to."
OK. So being homosexual does not lead to being a zoophile. Instead, the claim (in full) is that according to moral relativity the acceptance of one should lead to the acceptance of the other. That it doesn't in practice demonstrates that moral relativity is incorrect and those that claim to relativists are hypocrites.
1. Heterosexual sex is ordained by God and is generally moral.
2. Homosexual sex is forbidden by God and is completely immoral.
3. Sex with other species is forbidden by God and is completely immoral
That may be, but the justification for 2 has no connection to 3. After all, eating shellfish and wearing clothes made of two fibers are also forbidden by god and completely immoral, but we never seem to hear about those when discussing the morality of homosexuality.
The justification for 2 has the same justicfication to 3 - they are both prohibited by God. However I understand the shellfish point and will explain why there is a difference. The issue started as a discussion of marriage, specifically of gay marriage. There are several classes of marriage entities:
1. Adult different sex.
2. Adult same sex.
3. Child different sex.
4. Child same sex.
5. Non-human living organism different sex.
6. Non-human living organism same sex.
7. Inanimate object.
8. Various combinations or iterations of the above (polygamy).
All of the above were compared with one another in the discussion, class 2 and {5,6} were not the subject of exclusive discussion. The issue at stake was: How can we differentiate between the morality of allowing the marriage of any of these classes. Nemesis pointed to his religion and says, this is my justification for discerning which classes can get married - it says that marriage is between a man and a woman, so class 1 marriages are the only marriage permissible. Everything else is immoral.
The reason eating shellfish doesn't come into it is because you cannot marry 'eating shellfish' or marry 'wearing prohibited garments' or 'blue' 'funny' or 'C++'. Since the origin of the debate was in marriage it evolution followed from there, never jumping to other moral issues - it got stuck on marriage and sex. Typical -eh?
How does a relativist decide? The answer is that a relativist needs to consult his own personal moral standard which can conclude single answers to this question. Then the moral relativist would compare their conclusion with that of his or her culture. Does it line up? What about the moral principle of his culture? Does their culture's morality line up with the moral principles of their culture?
In our case our moral principles are that everybody is created equal. That everyone has equal rights. That consenting humans can engage in any act that does not infringe upon the rights of others: that they are free to pursue happiness.
The moral relativist sees that the moral principle of his or her culture does not line up with the moral practice of same culture - and seeks to change it by pointing this out. Alternatively, it is possible for a relativist to see that their own moral principles differ from the moral principles of their culture and seek to change those principles. It is even possible for a relativist's own moral principles will differ with the moral principles of their culture, but that their principles agree with the moral practice of their culture.
So, to conclude: the issue was homosexual marriage - so homosexuals had to come up. The debate discussed various different marriage classes - one of which was inter-species marriage. I suspect that because inter-species marriage was one of the first marriage classes to be discussed, that was the type of marriage that featured most predominantly in the debate (you will see, if you follow the debate that polygamy and child marriage did get thrashed out a fair amount too).
The problem is that we don't have an easy word for inter-species marriage and it gets a little tiring to type it all out, so it became 'bestiality' and - for consistency - 'homosexual sex'. Sex with children was also included and erroneously shortened to paedophilia.
It isn't that these things were singled out - it is just that bestiality and sex with a child are more clear examples of acts everybody could agree were immoral (is it immoral to have sex with a chair?). Just like Nazism is a political system which gets used as an extreme that just about everyone can agree is bad, or the holocaust as an example of an act just about everyone can agree is immoral.
The question became, 'You find that classes 1 and 2 are OK for marriage, but why not classes 3-8?', which was a rhetorical question principally as nemesis was attempting to demonstrate that moral relativists cannot employ moral relativity to discriminate between the morality of the marriage classes (or, later, 'sex' classes).
Unfortunately, some people are extremely sensitive and they took the fact that animal marriage (or sex) and homosexual marriage (or sex) where mentioned side by side to mean that nemesis (a Christian, whom those same people believe is a gay hating homophobe) was comparing homosexuals to dogs...or later that homosexuality leads to bestiality and rape. It was a sort of snowballing effect of overreaction and (perhaps) poorly communicated attempts at pacification. To be clear: communication is a two way street; given the potentially sensitive nature of the topic - nemesis should have probably been more diplomatic in his communication of his ideas. However, I understood what he was communicating so the communication issue cannot have been one-sided. Since people believe they are talking to a homophobe, they may have allowed that perception to colour their interpretation of what he was trying to communicate.
The debate just began to focus on two sexualities for the sake of brevity, not for the sake of homophobia.
You say that this kind of topic only comes up in discussions about homosexuality and not in heterosexuality - I'll have to concede to your seemingly superior knowledge on that one. I have never witnessed a debate where one member believed heterosexuality to be immoral and asked for the relativists who accepted homosexuality to justify taking the step to heterosexuality that doesn't also justify bestiality. Then again, that might be because there are very few people that consider heterosexuality to be immoral and any such debate would be rare indeed.
If you'd like to see it done: I can always pretend for a thread - and you can call me out for stating that heterosexuality leads to bestiailty - but what would be the point, eh?
That should hopefully clear things up - but if you have any other questions or points that I have not addressed by all means ask or point them out. I have suitably 'vented' now - and won't begrudge you doing likewise.

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Rrhain, posted 07-21-2007 5:59 AM Modulous has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 6 of 302 (411387)
07-20-2007 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
07-19-2007 8:31 PM


nemesis_juggernaut writes:
We've all either been dealt with unfairly or think that we have at some point on this forum by one or multiple members.
As always, you're wrong.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-19-2007 8:31 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Taz, posted 07-20-2007 1:01 PM ringo has replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 7 of 302 (411389)
07-20-2007 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Hyroglyphx
07-20-2007 9:29 AM


Re: Let the venting begin
nem writes:
And, can you not see the irony when its all too obvious to the rest of us that you hate me by the same deduction?
There's no irony there. I have always and will always freely admit that I do feel hate and anger. The difference between you and me is I don't let these feelings get in the way when I talk to children or when I vote.
Then what's your objection to mine?
Um... gay marriage? You can object to gay marriage all you want. It's when you want to object it on a federal level by introducing law after law and actually voting for them that gets to me. Their marriage has absolutely nothing to do with me or you.
I'm not in anyone's personal life that they aren't willing to share on the forum. I'm not an activist, Taz. Never have I gone to a gay rights parade to crash it with meanspirited signs; something I strongly object to in and of itself. Never have I pushed some sort of legislature to "ban" homosexuality, nor will I, because its counter-productive. Never have I been afforded the opportunity to vote on homosexual marriage.
The question is would you? Oh wait, California already have an anti-gay marriage law. Nevermind!
Here's the difference between you and me again. I actually speak out FOR christian right to worship publically. I actually speak out for christian right to protest at people's funerals. If religion is ever in danger of being banned, I will freely give my life to fight for it.
You on the other hand just sits there and not do anything because there's already an anti-gay marriage law in place in your state. The question is what would you do if there wasn't and they want to push one through?
Again, it's having your personal opinion and act out what you think is best for this country. I know that my ideas about what we should do to drug abusers and rapists (physical castration) is not the best thing for this country, therefore even though that's what I believe, I will fight against it. And yes, castration has been suggested as a legal way to deal with recidivist rapists and child molesters.
At most, I have expressed my opinion, something you say that you support. So, what's the problem? The problem, it seems to me, is that I don't think exactly like you.
Expressing your opinion isn't what I'm against. It's what you have said before, that you want to legislate morality. The fact that you keep comparing consenting gay sex to rape tells me that you want to make it as illegal as rape.
Damn, castrated?!? That seems a little hardcore.
Actually, I did a research and wrote a 20 page or so paper on this for one of my college projects. Because of a computer crash a few years back, I lost all my notes and paper, and I don't feel like looking up the information again. But take my word for it, there has been many researches in the past that concluded that castration actually lowers the rate of rape recidivism. Some states (I can't name any off the top of my head), are already using voluntary chemical castration on rape recidivists and the results have been very promising.
But again, it's just my opinion that castration is a valid mean to protect the best we can those who are vulnerable to this horrific crime. When I step outside, however, I realize that this also violates some very basic human rights.
Heh... I feel the same way about the Republican party. I think the problem is that the polarization of the two parties is bordering on the extreme. And extreme in any direction seems bad to me.
There was a book I read a few months ago about how the republican party has been hijacked by fundamentalists. Long story.
But you feel that you should have the right to interfere with the personal life of a pedophile to protect the child and society, right?
But a pedophile's sex life isn't personal anymore. On a selfless level, the pedophile is harming innocent children. On a selfish level, next time those children might be mine.
What's your point?
Or more specifically, you want to interfere with the personal lives of drug users.
No, I don't. I already told you already. I'm disgusted by drug users. I think they are a waste of oxygen. But when I step outside, I actually speak out for rehab programs and whatnot. You don't see me bitching about riverrat's breeding habits.
And worse, if this was Burger King, you'd have it your way and castrate them.
Again, I differentiate between my personal opinion and what I think is best for this country. On a personal level, I want to castrate them. On a more serious level, I would fight any legislation that even remotely suggests castration... and I would fight it to the bitter end or die trying.
I guess the concept of seperating your personal opinion from what you should think what's best for this country is too hard of a concept to understand...
I'm not saying the answers are easy. We have to protect society without interfering in the personal lives of many as much as possible. There are no easy answers with something like that.
How is legislating people's personal sex lives (consenting sex lives) not interfering? How are sodomy laws not interfering with people's personal sex lives?
What's the difference between a sodomy law and a law that forbids a woman from being on top while having intercourse with her husband?

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-20-2007 9:29 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-21-2007 12:01 PM Taz has replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 8 of 302 (411390)
07-20-2007 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by ringo
07-20-2007 12:51 PM


Time for me to vent my frustration on you, Ringo.
What the hell was the misunderstanding between you and berberry? When the hell are you going to tell us?

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by ringo, posted 07-20-2007 12:51 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by ringo, posted 07-20-2007 1:25 PM Taz has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 9 of 302 (411403)
07-20-2007 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Taz
07-20-2007 1:01 PM


Re: Time for me to vent my frustration on you, Ringo.
Tazmanian Devil writes:
What the hell was the misunderstanding between you and berberry?
I said something about atheists and morality and he jumped to the conclusion that I meant atheists have no morality. I apologized and explained that that was not what I meant at all, even if my wording might have been clumsy.
If you had been dutifully reading all of my posts, you'd know that.
When the hell are you going to tell us?
My point in mentioning the incident to nemesis_juggernaut was that a prompt apology and un-misunderstanding defuses a lot of unnecessary frustration. If you had remembered the event, it would have weakened my point.
-------------
Thanks for thinking of me. Any publicity is good publicity.
That's why I'm frustrating rather than frustrated.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Taz, posted 07-20-2007 1:01 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Taz, posted 07-20-2007 1:51 PM ringo has replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 10 of 302 (411409)
07-20-2007 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by ringo
07-20-2007 1:25 PM


Re: Time for me to vent my frustration on you, Ringo.
Ringo writes:
If you had been dutifully reading all of my posts, you'd know that.
Hahahaha. I guess I've been slacking on my duty lately.
Thanks for thinking of me. Any publicity is good publicity.
Such typical American attitude.
About a year ago, there was a survey about this. They surveyed like 100 thousand random teens across the country. The question was would you rather be rich, live a long full life, or famous? Almost all answered they'd rather be famous.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by ringo, posted 07-20-2007 1:25 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by ringo, posted 07-20-2007 2:18 PM Taz has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 11 of 302 (411412)
07-20-2007 2:10 PM


It's over a year since they installed the "chip-and-PIN" payment method in my home town, and the cashiers are still explaining to me how it works and which buttons to press. I know how it works, and if there's still anyone left who doesn't, they can piss off back to Mars where they came from.

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 12 of 302 (411415)
07-20-2007 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Taz
07-20-2007 1:51 PM


Re: Time for me to vent my frustration on you, Ringo.
Tazmanian Devil writes:
The question was would you rather be rich, live a long full life, or famous? Almost all answered they'd rather be famous.
Fortunately , the Internet pays mostly in fame.
**insert Andy Warhol reference**
Unfortunately, the easiest way to be famous is to be an asshole.
(Or learn how to spell.)

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Taz, posted 07-20-2007 1:51 PM Taz has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 13 of 302 (411420)
07-20-2007 2:35 PM


Oh, I see now, we're meant to be ranting about the EvC debate in particular, rather than anoying stuff in general.
Okay, I'll do one.
Why can't creationists argue against the theory of evolution, as found in science textbooks? Why do they always rave about an imaginary "theory of evolution" which they made up in their heads?
You might argue that they are all such confirmed and hardened liars that they are quite willing to tell lie after lie after lie about the theory they hate. But that doesn't make any sense. If they know that they can't argue against the actual theory of evolution, then surely they must know that it's correct?
What is going on in their heads?

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-20-2007 5:08 PM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 16 by Taz, posted 07-20-2007 6:58 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 14 of 302 (411446)
07-20-2007 5:07 PM


completely on/off topic
you want vented frustrations?
why is it that for the last month of my depo i spot and have cramps? i shouldn't be. the doctors say it's fine. i'm dying. i know it. i can't wait to clip those nasty little buggers.

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by riVeRraT, posted 07-23-2007 2:52 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 15 of 302 (411447)
07-20-2007 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Dr Adequate
07-20-2007 2:35 PM


If they know that they can't argue against the actual theory of evolution, then surely they must know that it's correct?
What is going on in their heads?
sounds like the old 'atheists really believe in god' argument

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-20-2007 2:35 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2007 1:30 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024