Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by C C, Aug 23, 2015.
That's not an insult. It's a real question. So iow, you got noth'n.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
He has claimed, several times, that they are "real" and that their existence are "facts".
Tell me - do you typically choose not to believe in facts?
Oh, come now - I'm sure you can figure it out for yourself.
That your "high and mighty" attitude is, quite frankly, pathetic.
You are missing a keyword there... "intentionally". intent is what makes it a problem... but you knew that already.
Hardly requires any kind of tracking. It's quite obvious when it occurs on a regular basis.
So you contend that ignoring evidence is not dishonest?
So you feel there is not obligation for people to be honest?
I am stating (quite factually) that when a member is permitted, time and again, to ignore the rules at his whim, it is INEVITABLE that other members will take umbrage with that and start lashing out. Surely this isn't a difficult concept to grasp.
I am offended (and disgusted) that you are refusing to acknowledge the entire situation, and are instead seeing just the parts you wish to see.
There is another option - that you are so biased in your view that you are blind to what the implications of your own words is...
So at one time he deserved to be "punished even more harshly" for how he was acting... and now those same actions should not be punished? And that isn't backpedaling?
Then he MUST own up and answer to factual posts that contradict what he is posting.
Again, this is INEVITABLE given his behavior.
Apparently lost on you...
Again, you are omitting important key-words here... when a belief is PRIVATELY HELD (and thus affects NOBODY ELSE), it needs no rules, as that belief is not being preached or soap-boxed. When one starts claiming it as factual, then it must be backed by facts.
If someone in the religion sub-forum (or any sub-forum) started preaching and proselytizing that their belief is "fact", the situation would not get to this point - they would be told (as has been done several times before) to quit violating the site rules.
And I call it making a point. Subtlety failed, direct confrontation failed... essentially, that was my variant of using a sledgehammer to drive a nail. I see that even THAT kind of bluntness was incapable of piercing whatever veil of confusion you shroud yourself with.
So, what, you claim those quotes are not yours then?
I have provided your quotes for all to see - I think their meaning is clear.
You may beg it, but you shan't have my pardon.
I think the implication is clear - you have, without evident reason or explanation, reversed tack from saying he deserved far worse punishment, to saying he shouldn't be held accountable.
Uh, because it's relevant? I could always provide a screenshot, if you would prefer Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Simply put - what you say and how you act is not lining up. What you have said in the past and what you are proposing now is not lining up.
You can claim fabrication all you like... the facts stand visible for all.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
More like your twisted interpretations of facts. Like how sea otters explain rock-throwing in the Oklahoma mountains. Or how bigfoot is impossible because of inbreeding. Etc and ect and etc.
You also apparently "got noth'n" when it comes to rpenner's post, which you CONTINUE to refuse to acknowledge or respond to.
So you wish to propose that genetic degradation from inbreeding isn't a fact?
And this is why I ignore you. The drone argument WAS addressed in my thread. So again you're lying. Not that not responding to Penner's post proves anything at all. If I choose not to respond to someone, that's my right. Your twisting it into some infractionable dishonesty is itself dishonest and an abuse of mod power. You should've been fired years ago.
Sure I have noticed, but that won't stop me asking relevant and pertinent questions on what is being debated. You refusing to answer them though, actually indicates that to answer honestly would be to admit what you claim is hogwash and that you are certainly possibly gullible in the extreme.
IOW - you cannot disprove what he is saying, so you will ignore it.
Same bullshit over and over MR... your tactics are tired and the only person who seems to be buying your sob story is Bells...
Actually, probably means all of them, considering the wishy washy, unlikely, unevidenced nature of near everything you claim.
It also probably means you are out to flame and troll, considering this is first and foremost a science forum, and considering you have posted threads in the past suggesting that astronomy/cosmology and even science in general are not beneficial to mankind.
Right. I'm paying Bells off to defend me. Only you could come up with a paranoid fantasy like that.
Then leave me alone. You and your loyal band of 5 trolls are the only ones making a big deal out of mere threads in the Fringe section, not us.
I would rather believe she has been somehow bought off rather than contemplate the alternative (that she has lost her mind, gone senile, or doing this out of spite)
The Fringe forum is not your personal soap-box. If you post here, you will be critiqued; the alternative would be to sequester you to a single thread (which was the option used for Victor) in order to contain the unsupported, unscientific bollocks to one location.
So if someone asked you "are you normally this stupid" you would not consider that an insult?
That kind of nonsense is one of the reasons you give Sciforums a bad name - and why most of your threads degenerate into you attacking other people with "real questions" and "but he really is a troll so it's not an attack" attacks.
There is one common factor in all those threads, but you will never see what it is.
You failed miserably to support your lie that I insult or attack anyone. So you might as well quit while you're ahead.
Is this just me, or is it ironic that MR claiming paranoia in the first statement, than comes up with the little "insulting" humdinger in his second statement.
An ironic insult. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You mean like this?
God is Love. God is Great. God is Real. The King is Risen.
Going on right now in the religion subforum?
Go get 'em Kit...
Then be prepared to have all your bogus explanations and ad hoc arguments blown to shreds without whining or crying about it. Which I pretty much do on a daily basis.
It would be almost entertaining... if it weren't being so doggedly defended Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Anyway, it's getting late and I have another 15 hour workday ahead of me tomorrow... so I must bid adieu.
Except that it is only you who believes those delusions. The world in general proceeds via science without your nonsensical claims, and the forum in general are probably having a giggle at your expense..
It has actually been reported, and was assigned to Bells (who has been very vocal that I should not be a moderator at all) - she has chosen not to act upon it *shrug*
My thoughts on how the thread went down?
Spellbound post simply that he "loves the Lord" - not much of a conversation piece to be honest, but hardly different from someone saying they love Mac n Cheese or the like.
The problem is, in post 4, he claimed him to be a real entity, yet provided no evidence to back that claim.
I would dearly, DEARLY love to see you post anything backed by good evidence and real science... and I'm not being sarcastic here. If you could go and catch a Bigfoot, you would be an instant celebrity. If you could make first contact with an alien species... well, you would either herald a new era of technological and socio-economic advancement, or bring about the extinction of mankind (depends on if/how benevolent they are, and their intentions).
However, I can say with a reasonable degree of certainty you will never do either of those things...
Right...because who ever heard of a religious person preaching and proselytizing? It's basically part of the package deal. You recruit Isis members. You get 72 virgins. You convert sinners to Jesus. You get a mansion on a street of gold.
Separate names with a comma.