|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: ChuckChuck Date: Aug 6, 2007 15:03
On Aug 6, 5:27 pm, Tera Free Nws gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, "Chuck," that's clearly NOT what I'm arguing. My argument
> clearly affirms that there are many alternatives to religion and
> nowhere in my argument is there any indication that institutionalized
> thought or institutionalized religious thought is necessary for
> anything.
That's what the article was about and it was on that basis that I
commented. It seems we agree on this point. So what is the problem?
|
| |
|
| | 3 Comments |
|
|
Author: Tera Free NwsTera Free Nws Date: Aug 6, 2007 15:05
On Aug 6, 3:27 pm, Chuck yahoo.com> wrote:>> And why then is it not more directly so that by
>> defending and supporting Katie Dean, you are
>> implicitly defending these things. Is it
>> choice to defend "ignorance, evil, denial, stupidity,
>> bigotry, intolerance and selfishness" Chuck?
>
> Would you point out where I have explicitly defended Katie, using your
> defense of Nancy as a model representation? Are you suggesting that
> Katie manifests or that Katie and I together manifest the
> institutionalized power of a religion? Your argument is laughable.
~You and Katie simply manifest the inherent power persuasion of a tag
team troll team where the anonomous troll affirms and defends the
position of the other troll. Call it "persuasion, by number."
|
| Show full article (1.15Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Tera Free NwsTera Free Nws Date: Aug 6, 2007 15:13
On Aug 6, 5:03 pm, Chuck yahoo.com> wrote:> On Aug 6, 5:27 pm, Tera Free Nws gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Well, "Chuck," that's clearly NOT what I'm arguing. My argument
>> clearly affirms that there are many alternatives to religion and
>> nowhere in my argument is there any indication that institutionalized
>> thought or institutionalized religious thought is necessary for
>> anything.
>
> That's what the article was about and it was on that basis that I
> commented. It seems we agree on this point. So what is the problem?
Well, frankly, "Chuck," the problem for you is you are a deceptive
a**hole, whose pseudo-intellectual rap is not serving you at all, but
rather getting your a** kicked.
Maybe you should make your arguments to people who are not
considerably more trained in abstract thought then a techie and his
consort with a French degree.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Gene Ward SmithGene Ward Smith Date: Aug 6, 2007 15:16
>> These things have also been done in the name of atheism, so by defending
>> atheism, you must be defending evil, bigotry and selfishness. Or
>> alternatively, you could pull your head out of your ass - your choice.
>
> Where have I defended atheism?
>
Your question isn't really relevant, since I was pointing out your argument
was bogus, not discussing your religious beliefs, if any. However, yoiur
reduction of all God talk to the status of mwrely symbolic language tends
in that direction.
DO you have beliefs?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Gene Ward SmithGene Ward Smith Date: Aug 6, 2007 15:18
> Gee, "Chuck," its amazing how you hide what you believe, then wish to
> claim what you believe is "things how they are." That's pretty much a
> claim of infallibility.
>
Chuck, what DO you believe?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Tera Free NwsTera Free Nws Date: Aug 6, 2007 15:28
On Aug 6, 4:23 am, Chuck yahoo.com> wrote:
> I take responsibility for what I do. If I've broken some law, call the
> authorities. If you've been offended by what I do, tough shit.
Anonomous troll "Chuck," makes sure he doesn't post any personal info,
which makes him responsible, so he pretty much has a one-sided game of
offend.
Too funny
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Tera Free NwsTera Free Nws Date: Aug 6, 2007 15:31
On Aug 6, 5:18 pm, Gene Ward Smith chewbacca.org> wrote:>> Gee, "Chuck," its amazing how you hide what you believe, then wish to
>> claim what you believe is "things how they are." That's pretty much a
>> claim of infallibility.
>
> Chuck, what DO you believe?
"Chuck" does not wish to reveal what he believes, just take pot shots
at what others believe.
Which makes him pretty much a deceptive a**hole by any standard.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Gene Ward SmithGene Ward Smith Date: Aug 6, 2007 15:31
> I take it you arent' familiar with the GEICO commercial.
I don't watch television.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ChuckChuck Date: Aug 6, 2007 15:44
On Aug 6, 6:03 pm, "Katie" yahoo.com> wrote:> "Deborah" noemail.com> wrote in message>> And I have the choice
>> of interpreting what happens in the world via the thought system of
>> the ego or not. It will make a great deal of difference to how I see
>> things, what choice I make there.
>
> You have the choice of acknowledging what is actually happening, or playing
> silly games like blaming thoughts you don't like to have on some illusive
> "ego".
>
> And you're correct, it does make a great deal of difference. Those who face
> actuality create and produce the necessary and desirable.
Dogs for dogging, hands for clapping, bird's for birding, and fish for
fishing. Still haven't figured cats out though.
> Those who make
> shit up cause they like how it sounds create and produce strife and
> aggravation.
Eldorado. Block that kick. What do you think of the Eagles this year?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: ChuckChuck Date: Aug 6, 2007 15:54
On Aug 6, 6:13 pm, Tera Free Nws gmail.com> wrote:> On Aug 6, 5:03 pm, Chuck yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Aug 6, 5:27 pm, Tera Free Nws gmail.com> wrote:>
>>> Well, "Chuck," that's clearly NOT what I'm arguing. My argument
>>> clearly affirms that there are many alternatives to religion and
>>> nowhere in my argument is there any indication that institutionalized
>>> thought or institutionalized religious thought is necessary for
>>> anything.
>
>> That's what the article was about and it was on that basis that I
>> commented. It seems we agree on this point. So what is the problem?
>
> Well, frankly, "Chuck," the problem for you is you are a deceptive
> a**hole, whose pseudo-intellectual rap is not serving you at all, but
> rather getting your a** kicked.
>
> Maybe you should make your arguments to people who are not
> considerably more trained in abstract thought then a techie and his ...
|
| Show full article (1.20Kb) |
| 4 Comments |
|
|
|
|
