Rain Dog wrote:You are joking right? Here again is the forum post you quoted to launch this thread. Please tell us how such crap is related to any meaningful discussion on the role of Christianity in Australian Civics.

Here we go, another out-of-context quote... whatever you do, don't let on to anyone just joining the program that's a quote from debate.org.

Since you will probably just reply with another personal attack instead of answering the queston (as usual), I will answer it for you -- quoting the previous article just cited.]

Personal attack? What, you preempting a fair response from me precludes you from being called on your nonsense? Nice one. No, I won't respond to or be held to account for anything you can drag up on debate.org - I used the first pro and first con responses on that site in my OP as a conversation starter, and you're now seriously trawling the debate for argument fodder?

Go away, little one. Islam doesn't need it's CEO first-knight if this is all you've got.

StroppyChops wrote: Gee, thanks. Did I mention Malaysia, or KL?

As predicted -- you avoided the question of how your original post is relevant to your (Now claimed) topic of the role of religion in Australian Civics. Opting for "Kemosabe" instead lol.

And Yes -- you menioned KL more than once in your post -- go back and read it.

StroppyChops wrote:

Rain Dog wrote:You are joking right? Here again is the forum post you quoted to launch this thread. Please tell us how such crap is related to any meaningful discussion on the role of Christianity in Australian Civics.

Here we go, another out-of-context quote... whatever you do, don't let on to anyone just joining the program that's a quote from debate.org.

Since you will probably just reply with another personal attack instead of answering the queston (as usual), I will answer it for you -- quoting the previous article just cited.]

Personal attack? What, you preempting a fair response from me precludes you from being called on your nonsense? Nice one. No, I won't respond to or be held to account for anything you can drag up on debate.org - I used the first pro and first con responses on that site in my OP as a conversation starter, and you're now seriously trawling the debate for argument fodder?

Go away, little one. Islam doesn't need it's CEO first-knight if this is all you've got.

Dag certainly had it right. You really are deceptive. I have dragged up nothing frm debate.org --- YOU quoted the post from debate.org (I have never even visited). Furthermore it was the main discussion point of your first post on your thread pitting Christians against Muslims.

I quoted an article from alternet.org that addressed the very phenomenon you are now trying to raise, but you predictably have failed to address any of the points.

As to "Go away, little one" --- haha keep up he personal attacks --- I am going no place. Maybe you can PM OD to ban me like he did Dagenham if you don't like your views challenged.

Seems the fab game Faith Fighter, where you chose a belief and then kicked the shit out of another one has been taken offline, unless someone can get this to work.

http://www.agame.com/game/faith-fighter-2

Well, I myself am just horrified that Tim Linkinwater has Dagenham's phone number.

Tim Linkinwater wrote:Seems the fab game Faith Fighter, where you chose a belief and then kicked the shit out of another one has been take offline, unless someone can get this to work.

http://www.agame.com/game/faith-fighter-2

Never heard of it. Sounds fun.

Is atheism an option as a faith.

My personal view is that I would far rather trust a man skilled in living his faith than one skilled in debating it.

Debating skills presuppose training in answering obvious replies (like JW's do), prepping, and thus a devious nature.

Truth does not need a defence.

Sorry to speak the truth.

Rain Dog wrote:

vladimir wrote:

Rain Dog wrote:One of the biggest complaints about K440 is that admin protected certain long term or high volume posters from criticisms by others.

I fear that trait is starting to emerge here.

Nail.On head.

Indefensible OD, you can reason all you want, but you know and I know.

Isn't that true in life, the things we vocalise so much about are the things we fear becoming?

And then we do.

+1

To his credit OD has dealt with most of this heated thread well. But we all know what banning Dag was about. Kind of disappointing and reminiscent of some of the old k440 complaints.

your guys' insistence that i'm protecting stroppy is frankly an absurd assumption in my opinion, and i think i know my motives better than anyone else, but it pretty clear your minds are set and won't be changed by my explaining of my actions. and it's a shame you feel that way.

stroppy is a big boy, and can take care of himself... i doubt he'd even WANT me to intervene on his behalf in such a way, and i wouldn't do it if he asked. dengaham was crossing a line... and we'd put up with it for a while hoping it would pass. it wasn't. so then we sent him messages and warnings about it thinking it would check him and he would let it go. he didn't. finally when a fe minutes after i gave him an official warning on the matter, laying down that he either needed to stop it or get a forced break, he "tested" me by doing it again... intentionally. so, i followed through on my promise.

Frankly I'd be angry at OD or any mod if they 'protected' me in the way you describe or gave me or anyone else preferred standing based on personal relationships. However, I don't honestly believe you guys believe that this is what happened, I'm more inclined to think you just didn't like what I had to say, and it's easier to cry foul. I have a higher opinion of you than that and kinda hope it's a bit of a one-off, particularly you vlad.

404 Not Known