So, what to do with those pesky Muslems?

Gary Kirkham

You know, I don't really mind you standing up for what you believe. Sometimes I do wish you would give it a rest and not make a point of stirring the pot with every post. I do occasionally stir things up, but it is usually in response to something someone else wrote. That said...I really wish that you would stop being abusive to people. It is decidedly un-Christian and totally unnecessary. I am not sure what your goal is, but if it is winning people to Christ, then you are failing miserably. If you are trying to be contentious and hurtful, then I have to say, "Good job!"

Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God" Me blog, You read

Ilion

I was not only naive at the time, but honorable towards women. I do not use women as recepticles. Also, while I'm sure that you won't believe this: getting your dick sucked is downright boring. "Boinking" is where it's at. But even "boinking" is eventually boring if that's all the significance it has. If sex is not the giving of yourself to another, you will end up hating it, and her.

Ilion

on all accusations.

Ilion

CataclysmicQuantum wrote:

Did you ever boink her? Or at least get your dicks sucked?

I've long gathered that you present yourself as being a virgin; I have no reason to doubt that. If you want your "boinking" to have you thinking "Man! *This* is what I was born to do!" then make sure that you're not just "boinking."

Ro0ke

I was just curious as to where he got that information, and to a lesser extent, why questioning his source of information was contemptible.

R Giskard Reventlov

Deflection: many people lose their temper or throw a fit or obfuscate or whatever to deflect. It's like asking a politician a question: they'll waffleon about everything else but never answer the question no matter how hard you press and they hope you'll get worn down and give up. Usually because they don't know the answer or telling the truth is worse than saying nothing or they can't accept that they may be wrong. It is quite amusing: he displays his abject ignorance in vivid technicolor with every post: try drawing him on anything meaningful and watch him squirm and wriggle away or simply repeat his bigoted mantra.

bin the spin home

Ilion

Ro0ke wrote:

I was just curious as to where he got that information, and to a lesser extent, why questioning his source of information was contemptible.

Ro0ke wrote:

Ilíon: You (Fat_Boy, personally, and great numbers, perhaps even a majority, of "Europeans") [emphasis yours] Ro0ke: That is a generalization.

[sarcasm] How fortunate am I that you were here to inform me that I had made a generalization. After all, it's not as though the very form and structure of what I'd written doesn't scream "This statement is a generalization and the author knows this!" [/sarcasm] Are you trying to imply that you weren't trying to use the contemptible tactic of fiat asserting that generalizations are "bad" and invalid, and therefore the statement one wishes to dispute can logically be waved away as of no account? (Do you even understand that such an assertion is itself a generalization? And, therefore, but its own asserted standard, invalid and of no account.) Also, do you not understand the use and meaning of the subjunctive mode of the English language?

Ro0ke

So as I understand it, you don't actually believe the majority of Europeans believe that there is absolutely nothing in this world worth dying for. Is this correct?

Ilion

Do you not understand the subjunctive?

Ro0ke wrote:

So as I understand it, you don't actually believe the majority of Europeans believe that there is absolutely nothing in this world worth dying for. Is this correct?

Also, do you not understand the insinuations contained in what you wrote first and here?

Ro0ke

There is no need to get defensive. I simply wanted to understand why you think the majority of Europeans believe there is nothing in the world worth dying for. As I understand it now, you don't actually believe that. There was no deeper meaning to what I wrote, you're over-analyzing it.

led mike

fat_boy wrote:

Somewhat in line with the proposed 'Oath of Britishness' I think we need an 'Oath of Europeaness', AKA, 'Oath of Westernisation'.

I think we could combine them all into the 'Oath of Non-BarbarismLameness'

led mike

Ilion

Ro0ke wrote:

There is no need to get defensive.

As you've surely been informed, I'm *offensive* (not defensive).

Ro0ke wrote:

As I understand it now, you don't actually believe that.

And I never said that I did, I took no position one way or another. ... Though, I *did* imply that I believed that such would not be a positive or desirable thing.

Ro0ke wrote:

... you're over-analyzing it.

Occupational (and social) hazard, I suppose. I'm a programmer: I analyze. I'm widely (even if shallowly) read; and I assume that other people generally do mean to write just what they write, same as I do. You say that I misinterpreted what you meant. I am willing to accept that I may well have done: so, I apologize for reacting as I did.

73Zeppelin

Gary Kirkham wrote:

That said...I really wish that you would stop being abusive to people. It is decidedly un-Christian and totally unnecessary. I am not sure what your goal is, but if it is winning people to Christ, then you are failing miserably. If you are trying to be contentious and hurtful, then I have to say, "Good job!"

Thank you for that Gary.

Only memories, fading memories, blending into dull tableaux. I want them back.

Vincent Reynolds

Ilíon wrote:

I'm widely (even if shallowly) read

This is probably a consequence of your wide and shallow writing.

soap brain

I know that *liar* is the new *fool*, but I'm not lying when I say that you're a boring idiot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_complex_%28self-concept%29[^]

Richard of York gave battle in vain.

Ilion

Vincent Reynolds wrote:

**Ilíon:**I'm widely (even if shallowly) read . Vincent Reynolds: This is probably a consequence of your wide and shallow writing.

If you want to try to insult someone, it is of no help (to your case) to demonstrate in the "insult" your own inability to reason logically. :doh: You poor, pathetic thing. :(( :sigh:

Ro0ke

Ilíon wrote:

Occupational (and social) hazard, I suppose. I'm a programmer: I analyze.

Good point.

Ilíon wrote:

You say that I misinterpreted what you meant. I am willing to accept that I may well have done: so, I apologize for reacting as I did.

No problem. One of the most difficult things about holding a discussion on the internet is the lack of immediate feedback. Words can be taken out of context very easily, as I did with your original comment.

soap brain

You love that word, 'logic', don't you... I hope that superior glow doesn't wear off too soon.

Richard of York gave battle in vain.

Ilion

Ro0ke wrote:

Good point.

Aw, shucks. It's just a talent. ;) ( :laugh: at myself )

Ro0ke wrote:

One of the most difficult things about holding a discussion on the internet is the lack of immediate feedback. Words can be taken out of context very easily,

Yes. That's why I strive always to be very precise in what I write. Of course I don't always manage to say exactly what I mean, but I usually do.

Ro0ke wrote:

Words can be taken out of context very easily, as I did with your original comment.

:rose: I do make a conscious effort to see and treat everyone I encounter as an individual, to not react to Person X on the basis of anything Persons A, B, and C have done. But, and even though I make a conscious effort to ignore the constant asinine pile-ups from Persons A, B, and C, I am human: weak, easily misguided/distracted, etc, etc. It was obvious that you took what I said out of context. But I erred in imputing intentionality to you in this. I further erred (a moral error, not merely a mistake) in treating you as though I had good reason to believe you were just one more of those who intentionally distort and "misunderstand" what I say. Again, I am sorry.

Vincent Reynolds

Ilíon wrote:

If you want to try to insult someone, it is of no help (to your case) to demonstrate in the "insult" your own inability to reason logically.

Logical reasoning? :laugh: My insult was based on simple observation. It doesn't take Aristotle to recognize you as a second-rate sophist. An accomplished sophist would at least display a modicum of wit in order to entertain. It amazes me that you, a demonstrated half-wit, have yet to be even half witty.