Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fundamental Atheism and the Conflicting Ideas Problem.
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 106 of 134 (200214)
04-18-2005 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by contracycle
04-18-2005 11:06 AM


bigot.
posting this just shows how little you really understand the agnostic position.
note, it is not written by an agnostic, but an atheist, and is from a website that has several examples of "mocking" humor.
contracycle, msg 70 writes:
It is undoubtedly the case that fundamentalists consider their position as right and true and just, and that they are superior ro non-fundamentalists in their commitment and zeal.
that would include concescending humor combined with false portrayals (your favorite).
this is really nothing more than thinly veiled bigotry parading as humor.
do you call yourself a "free thinker" hmmm?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by contracycle, posted 04-18-2005 11:06 AM contracycle has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 107 of 134 (200222)
04-18-2005 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by contracycle
04-18-2005 7:29 AM


Re: Continuing on Dark Matter.
contracycle writes:
you are clearly no longer conversing rationally. Yes, the ducks are in a row, BECAUSE the tentativity ...
ah yes, claim the rational high road even if you can't hold it.
as noted your fundamental belief requires you to claim all your actions are rational and not based on belief, regardless of the situation. as a fundamentalist you also have to portray yourself as superior, regardless of the facts.
so are the ducks lined up in a tentative row, or tentatively lined up in a tentative row, or are they tentative ducks tentatively lined up in a tentative row? do you have 96 "dark" ducks that you can't see, touch, smell or otherwise measure for every 4 normal ducks? can you tell if they are in the row or not?
when do you acknowledge that tentative means "I don't know" or "I'm guessing this because I believe it is right" ...?
tentative adj.
1. Not fully worked out, concluded, or agreed on; provisional: tentative plans.
2. Uncertain; hesitant.
It's nice to meet someone so certain of their tentative certainty.
all alleged encounters with god can be satisfactorily explained
that's all you have? "alleged encounters with god" can be dismissed by theists (and often are) without affecting their certainty that god exists, or the belief that god created the universe and then went off on other business.
and you still haven't explained how a created universe - created to behave exactly as this one is doing - can be distinguished from one that is not created ... while only having a sample set of (1) universe.
the answer to that may be the same as the (1, 2 or 3) answer to "6x9 equals 42" (remember that list of {A} items you refuse to answer because it will betray your logical inconsistency? (don't worry: you already have)).
I also note you have yet to post your actual quotes of my posts demonstrating that your claims were valid representations of my position -- as you were challenged to do, and as you agreed (not that you haven't broken agreements before ... ).
until you do so you are in violation of the board guidelines, but this won't be the first time for that either.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by contracycle, posted 04-18-2005 7:29 AM contracycle has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 108 of 134 (200239)
04-18-2005 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Quetzal
04-17-2005 9:47 PM


blind spots
sorry, I'm not trying to be obscure. the link is fairly simple in my mind.
let's start by going back to the basic premise to see where dark stuffs butts it's ugly little head into the argument:
ABSENT proof that {A} exists AND
ABSENT proof that {A} does NOT exist
What is the most logical position:
(1) YES {A} exists! OR
(2) NO {A} does NOT exist! OR
(3) We don't know if {A} exists or not
coupled with the list for contracycle of some possible {A} items (other than gods) ... awaiting the answer (1) (2) or (3) as deemed appropriate:
(A) UFO's
(B) Yeti
(C) Sasquatch
(D) Nessie
(E) Dark matter
(F) Dark energy
(G) Dark gravity
(H) Life on other planets
(I) Intelligent life on other planets
(J) Intelligent life on this planet
(K) That 6 times 9 is 42
The point being that, logically, the conclusion should not depend on what the item {is} but on the structure of the logic leading to the conclusion. In practice each specific item listed here 'colors' the answers given in different ways and this demonstrates that belief is involved. The stronger the belief the stronger the answer is colored.
I believe there is life on other planets. I don't believe in Nessie. On dark stuffs I remain tentatively agnostic, albeit with a strong bias towards disbelief (I believe some other answer will resolve the issue)
Quetzal writes:
Sure. "I don't know" is a reasonable answer when there is doubt. My discussion with Oook appears to be based on at what level "doubt" becomes meaningless mental masturbation.
the doubt does not diminish so much as the value given to it is colored by the beliefs involved.
What supplants doubt often is belief, the doubt becomes meaningless (to you) because of (your) {world view} and what (you) believe.
We all have blind spots, it's not intentional. Hope that helps.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Quetzal, posted 04-17-2005 9:47 PM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by contracycle, posted 04-19-2005 8:20 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 110 by contracycle, posted 04-19-2005 8:23 AM RAZD has not replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 134 (200312)
04-19-2005 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by RAZD
04-18-2005 8:58 PM


Re: blind spots
quote:
The point being that, logically, the conclusion should not depend on what the item {is} but on the structure of the logic leading to the conclusion.
And therein lies your error. It is the classic error of the use of pure logic alone - it is possible to creat logical constructs that have no bearing on reality.
It DOES matter what the subject of the argument is, because there is no basis for claiming that merely becuase you can conceive of a logical construct, that construct must actually have any material reality.
This is why Materialism, specifically dialectical materialism, is a superior analytical methdology. You MUST always keep your eye on the material instance, not the abstraction.
And hence your argument continues - necessarily - to ignore the fact that there is no case to answer for god, because all reports of god can be sufficiently explained by other means.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by RAZD, posted 04-18-2005 8:58 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Phat, posted 04-19-2005 9:00 AM contracycle has replied
 Message 113 by RAZD, posted 04-19-2005 9:52 PM contracycle has replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 110 of 134 (200314)
04-19-2005 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by RAZD
04-18-2005 8:58 PM


Re: blind spots
Edit--Double Post. PB
This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 04-19-2005 05:56 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by RAZD, posted 04-18-2005 8:58 PM RAZD has not replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 111 of 134 (200317)
04-19-2005 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by contracycle
04-19-2005 8:20 AM


Re: blind spots
A couple of questions:
1) What defines ultimate reality? If there were a reality greater than human comprehension, are you saying that such a reality need not exist since we cannot define it?
2) Is reality necessarily limited to human comprehension and quantification?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by contracycle, posted 04-19-2005 8:20 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by contracycle, posted 04-19-2005 9:39 AM Phat has not replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 134 (200323)
04-19-2005 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Phat
04-19-2005 9:00 AM


Re: blind spots
quote:
1) What defines ultimate reality? If there were a reality greater than human comprehension, are you saying that such a reality need not exist since we cannot define it?
No. I said nothing about any ultimate reality. All I said was that "pure logic is only governed by the logic of logic" whereas the real world is a lot messier. Merely because we can conceive of something does not mean we should expect it to really exist.
Reality is not limited to human comprehension, and nothing I have said should be taken to suggest it should be. But that said, there is no reason that any existing thing should be unpercievable to us, if we try correctly.
Note: definitions are inherently more dangerous than observations. An observation only says "this is"; a definition says "this is its totality". The ONLY time in which a definition need be discussed is when establishing a shared vocabulary. At all other times, discussions of "definitions" are prone to the danger that they substitute the definition for the observation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Phat, posted 04-19-2005 9:00 AM Phat has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 113 of 134 (200550)
04-19-2005 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by contracycle
04-19-2005 8:20 AM


Contracycle challenged
by this reasoning {$1 + $1 = $2} is not the same as {1 euro + 1 euro = 2 euros} because you have to consider the meaning of "$" and "euro" first
and if you don't believe in euros then you know they are not the same structure, for one {means something} and the other {doesn't}.
once again you display your fundamentalist narrow {world view} that rejects any challenge to it while claiming to have the more logical position.
there is no basis for claiming that merely becuase you can conceive of a logical construct, that construct must actually have any material reality.
1+1=2 doesn't have any material reality. nor does 6x9=42. do you dispute the validity of math too? you keep introducing things to the argument that don't bear on it: this is a(nother) classic strawman example.
and (surprise) again you miss the point: either the argument structure is logical (and therefore the logical conclusion is the same regardless of the subject that fits the conditions of the argument), or the argument structure is not logical (in which case it should be easy to point out the logical fallacy).
if the argument structure is logical but your conclusions are different then you are not emplying logic in reaching those conclusions, but belief.
as you amply, post after post, display.
I also note you still have yet to post your actual quotes of my posts demonstrating that your claims were valid representations of my position -- as you were challenged to do, and as you agreed (not that you haven't broken agreements before ... ).
until you do so you are in violation of the board guidelines, but this won't be the first time for that either.
contracycle msg 88 writes:
Your challenge is accepted
see Message 92 for clarification of the terms you (supposedly) have agreed to on this matter. continuing to avoid the issue is also a violation of board guidelines.
If you continue to avoid the issue then I will feel justified in calling you a liar, because either you (1) back up your claim with facts or (2) acknowledge that you were mistaken or (3) intend to deceive.
And just to make sure we are talking about the same meaning of the same word:
lie n.
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
You've already had 4 whole days on this, and you said it would be easy.
contracycle, msg 70 writes:
It is undoubtedly the case that fundamentalists consider their position as right and true and just, and that they are superior ro non-fundamentalists in their commitment and zeal.
enjoy.
{{edited to change subtitle for clarity of subthread issues}}
This message has been edited by RAZD, 04*19*2005 08:54 PM

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by contracycle, posted 04-19-2005 8:20 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by contracycle, posted 04-20-2005 6:08 AM RAZD has replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 134 (200645)
04-20-2005 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by RAZD
04-19-2005 9:52 PM


Re: Contracycle challenged
quote:
by this reasoning {$1 + $1 = $2} is not the same as {1 euro + 1 euro = 2 euros} because you have to consider the meaning of "$" and "euro" first
LOL, yes thats obviously true. Whether or not they are negotiable currency changes with locale.
Of course, what you are trying to present is an appeal to the pure numbers...
quote:
1+1=2 doesn't have any material reality. nor does 6x9=42. do you dispute the validity of math too? you keep introducing things to the argument that don't bear on it: this is a(nother) classic strawman example.
Well, which mathematical system are you appealing to? Euclidian? Non-Euclidian? There are multiple coherent mathematical systems, any of which could be taken as valid. We use one.
Thats in fact a prime example of why you have to be careful which of several logically coherent systems you adopt - merely becuase they are logically coherent does not mean they describe reality.
quote:
and (surprise) again you miss the point: either the argument structure is logical (and therefore the logical conclusion is the same regardless of the subject that fits the conditions of the argument), or the argument structure is not logical (in which case it should be easy to point out the logical fallacy).
LOL - I did not miss the point at all. All your construction here shows is that a nonsense, but logical, argument can be constructed. So what? That does not in any sense imply that reality should echo your favoured conclusion. Merely because something is logical does not mean the thing exists.
quote:
I also note you still have yet to post your actual quotes of my posts demonstrating that your claims were valid representations of my position -- as you were challenged to do, and as you agreed (not that you haven't broken agreements before ... ).
Well why don't you go back to the original thread, where I already did so? Repeating myself would only be a courtesy to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by RAZD, posted 04-19-2005 9:52 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by RAZD, posted 04-20-2005 7:21 AM contracycle has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 115 of 134 (200651)
04-20-2005 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by contracycle
04-20-2005 6:08 AM


Contracycle LIES
contracycle desperately writes:
. All your construction here shows is that a nonsense, but logical, argument can be constructed.
Nonsense? Funny how I predicted that any conflict to your {world view} would be rejected as nonsense at the start of this thread.
Thus you actually admit that the construction is logically valid and that therefor any conclusion that does not come from the logic is based on belief.
Your contention there is no god is a belief. Q.E.D.
And now you show (again) your true colors. You were challenged to provide proof of your misrepresentations of my positions, you agreed to do so, and now you try to avoid your responsibility to prove or admit your misrepresentations:
Well why don't you go back to the original thread, where I already did so? Repeating myself would only be a courtesy to you.
Because you are a liar. You never showed what you claim to have shown, you won't or cannot show what you agreed to do, and you won't admit that you were mistaken. The only conclusion is that you want to deceive and that you want to continue to deceive. On purpose. With Intent. That makes you a liar.
You did the same on that other thread.
Your lies have caught up to you.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by contracycle, posted 04-20-2005 6:08 AM contracycle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by AdminJar, posted 04-20-2005 1:02 PM RAZD has replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 134 (200701)
04-20-2005 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by RAZD
04-20-2005 7:21 AM


I don't want to have to give you a time-out.
Let's stop attacking the poster. Can you rephrase "Contracycle LIES" and "Because you are a liar." in a manner so that you are discussion the content of messages and not the messenger.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by RAZD, posted 04-20-2005 7:21 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by RAZD, posted 04-20-2005 11:06 PM AdminJar has not replied

Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 134 (200711)
04-20-2005 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by RAZD
04-08-2005 9:54 PM


standards of proof
first, welcome back. primo-egg.
Thanks very much. May only be a flying visit - though I have been reading this thread with interest.
it seems that a lot of people want to be fundamental atheists and yet they still carry a caveat about stating that "god does not exist" is a literal fact ...
I know of no fundamental theist that brooks a smidgeon of doubt on the topic of {his\her} belief.
One could say the same about fundamental agnostics - could they brook any doubt that their' belief that there exists no evidence either way is wrong?
I might have missed your response to the chocolate brownies argument, so maybe you've already responded to it, but I just want to spell things out here, in case you haven't. Would you agree or disagree with the statements below?
1) it is as rational to believe in God as it is to believe in invisible chocolate coated fairies.
2) one can never know anything for sure - using your own idea of whatever "for sure" means.
3) the laws of logic are time invariant
The reason I ask, is that in your syllogism:
ABSENT proof that {A} exists AND
ABSENT proof that {A} does NOT exist
What is the most logical position:
(1) YES {A} exists! OR
(2) NO {A} does NOT exist! OR
(3) We don't know if {A} exists or not
the basis of disagreement is what it is that might constitute proof and further whether all things held to be true are beliefs (such as the "belief" that the laws of logic themselves are time invariant).
If nothing can constitute a proof, or all things are beliefs, then this isn't really saying very much - but I don't think this is quite what you're driving at. From what you seem to be saying is that there are some things which can be proved and the whole God concept has not (yet) - so it is rational to keep an open mind. Others have argued that in their own view, God has been disproved, inasmuch as you can disprove anything - so this is a rational choice.
Also, not sure where you're going with the dark matter/energy line - there's plenty of evidence for the existence of both. Just because we don't know what exactly ot consists of doesn't mean we can't discern anything about its existence and its properties - I don't know what an electron's made from either.
PE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by RAZD, posted 04-08-2005 9:54 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by RAZD, posted 04-20-2005 9:39 PM Primordial Egg has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 118 of 134 (200788)
04-20-2005 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Primordial Egg
04-20-2005 2:24 PM


Re: standards of proof
Primordial Egg writes:
From what you seem to be saying is that there are some things which can be proved and the whole God concept has not (yet) - so it is rational to keep an open mind.
There are things I feel confident saying that "I know this" and there are things where I say "I believe this" and the difference is in the level of knowledge, evidence and logic of the arguments.
I choose to not believe in contracycle's strawman brownies. I choose to believe there is life on other planets, recognizing that it is not the logical choice, but it is the one I make based on my {world view} beliefs.
If life is found on other planets then that particular question will no longer qualify as an {A} item question, but that will still not invalidate the logical structure of the argument. I presume this is what you mean by time-variant.
Likewise, anyone can choose to believe there is no god based on their {world view} beliefs. The issue is whether they recognize that it is a belief based choice and not based on the logic of the argument.
Also, not sure where you're going with the dark matter/energy line - there's plenty of evidence for the existence of both. Just because we don't know what exactly ot consists of doesn't mean we can't discern anything about its existence and its properties
What evidence is there that is not just the observation of anomalous behavior compared to predicted theoretical behavior?
is the evidence for dark energy really evidence for dark energy? or is it evidence that the concept of dark matter is wrong (it alone does not predict the observed behavior ... so add another epicycle?) and another fudge factor needs to be added to make the theory match the observations? and there needs to be more dark energy than dark matter and more dark matter than "normal" matter ... ???
I am unaware of any evidence that rules out other theories that don't require dark stuffs to explain the anomalous behavior.
I don't know what an electron's made from either.
the lobster quadrille dance of sub-atomic particles in and out of this {space\time} may ultimately be evidence of what is wrong with the theory of gravity that requires dark stuffs to "fix" the results to match the observations.
in point of fact the theory of gravity is little more than an empirical theory based on large numbers of observations and then figuring out how to best relate them. newton had a good start, but einstein stepped it up a notch, however the GUT unification part is still missing to say nothing of other predicted elements, from gravitons to gravity waves. and it breaks down at large scales behavior.
what is "G" ultimately? how do we know the value of "G" is correct?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Primordial Egg, posted 04-20-2005 2:24 PM Primordial Egg has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 119 of 134 (200819)
04-20-2005 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by AdminJar
04-20-2005 1:02 PM


Re: I don't want to have to give you a time-out.
No. Jar I will not, not without action on contracylces part first. I suggest you look into the issue a little further to see that this complaint is justified. As far as I am concerned contracycles behavior has proven that he is a liar in at least one specific instance. Bear with me while I show you.
see Message 113:
I also note you still have yet to post your actual quotes of my posts demonstrating that your claims were valid representations of my position -- as you were challenged to do, and as you agreed (not that you haven't broken agreements before ... ).
until you do so you are in violation of the board guidelines, but this won't be the first time for that either.
contracycle msg 88 writes:
Your challenge is accepted
see Message 92 for clarification of the terms you (supposedly) have agreed to on this matter. continuing to avoid the issue is also a violation of board guidelines.
If you continue to avoid the issue then I will feel justified in calling you a liar, because either you (1) back up your claim with facts or (2) acknowledge that you were mistaken or (3) intend to deceive.
And just to make sure we are talking about the same meaning of the same word:
lie n.
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
You've already had 4 whole days on this, and you said it would be easy.
Notice that contracycle has been asked to substantiate a claim and has failed to do so, in spite of even initially agreeing to do so.
Notice too that he was put on notice that failure to comply with the challenge to substantiate his claim and failure to admit misrepresenting my position would be taken de facto as evidence of intent to deceive.
Thus I have been dealing with the argument, contracycle has not, and continues to evade the issue and pretend his position is true: he clearly shows that his intent is for his misrepresentations of my positions to stand, and misrepresentation with intent to deceive is lying.
This is the pattern of his posts. He did it on the other thread that you closed down, and he is doing it here.
Notice that he said Message 88:
LOL. Your challenge is accepted, becuase I already succesfully posted them once. But it will have to wait for another post.
This is another misrepresentation, which if deliberate with intent to deceive would be another lie. I cannot demonstrate that intent on this item
But his continuing refusal to even attempt to substantiate his misrepresentations of my positions means that he intends for their false message to continue as if it were true. It isn't. Intent plus falsehood = lie.
Here is the post where he was challenged to back up his claims Message 86
You claimed there was no evidential support for the running ape model, and that sexual selection was therefore chosen by default.
No, you were hurling the insults, accusing me rather fatuously of not being an expert in the field. Your argument was destroyed. Deal with it.
your penchant for blatantly misrepresenting the facts is, again, hereby noted. these are both falsehoods. I challenge you to show a post where I said either. this is just one more example of your complete inabilty to deal with the subject honestly.
let me refer you to
EvC Forum: the evolution of clothes?
http://< !--UB EvC Forum: the evolution of clothes? -->http://EvC Forum: the evolution of clothes?
and
EvC Forum: the evolution of clothes?
where, rather than my accusing you "fatuously of not being an expert in the field" it seems you were ducking and running from honestly participating in the argument. you made an agreement, and never lived up to it.
the agreement was proposed here
EvC Forum: the evolution of clothes?
and your acceptance of it is here
EvC Forum: the evolution of clothes?
Note that to substantiate his claim all contracycle needs to do is quote one post where he can show I actually said what he claims I said. If his claim were true it truly would be easy to prove. If his claim is a misrepresentation then he cannot substantiate it, and then if he does not withdraw his claim, he intends to continue to misrepresent my positions.
Contracycle needs to either substantiate his claim or withdraw it. An honest person would either post the evidence or apologize.
Admin should require that he do so.
Contracycle is in violation of the following forum guidelines:
2 Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without further elaboration.
4 Make your points by providing supporting evidence and/or argument. Avoid bare assertions. Because it is often not possible to tell which points will prove controversial, it is acceptable to wait until a point is challenged before supporting it.
7 Avoid any form of misrepresentation.
In spite of being asked to comply.
Given all that, if he substantiates his claim then I will withdraw my statement. It is that simple.
You can give me a time-out, or you can give me justice.
Take the path you feel needs to be taken.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by AdminJar, posted 04-20-2005 1:02 PM AdminJar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by jar, posted 04-20-2005 11:12 PM RAZD has not replied
 Message 121 by contracycle, posted 04-21-2005 7:23 AM RAZD has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 120 of 134 (200821)
04-20-2005 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by RAZD
04-20-2005 11:06 PM


I'm sorry Razd
The issue is not his behavior but yours. The guidelines do not say don't attack posters except when it's justified, it says don't personally attack posters, attack the mesage.
Take a rest for a day. Sorry.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by RAZD, posted 04-20-2005 11:06 PM RAZD has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024