Was I clear as mud as to how to find peace?

Mon Jun 18, 2007 5:00 pm

Mr. Coffee wrote:Light, I'll take it that your failure to answer my post is you conceading that you were wrong.

Interesting conclusion, wrong as it may be. In truth, I don't think continuing on this line of argument is productive. Being kind, I think you are too dense, which is kind of annoying when combined with your tendency to try and pepper your writing with attacks on the intelligence of your interlocuters. Being tactful, I just ended the conversation. But you forced my hand here. If it is any consolation, I don't think my opinion is shared by just the faithful on this board. Tribal loyalties might shame others into silence, however.

But thank you for "correcting my understanding of history" by failing to contradict anything I said about the history of Ockham and just piling on another example to support my point.

Post by **_Mr. Coffee** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 5:14 pm

A Light in the Darkness wrote:Interesting conclusion, wrong as it may be. In truth, I don't think continuing on this line of argument is productive. Being kind, I think you are too dense, which is kind of annoying when combined with your tendency to try and pepper your writing with attacks on the intelligence of your interlocuters. Being tactful, I just ended the conversation. But you forced my hand here. If it is any consolation, I don't think my opinion is shared by just the faithful on this board. Tribal loyalties might shame others into silence, however.

Plain English Translation: "WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!"

Either prove me wrong or be man enough to admit you are wrong. Mincing words and thinly veiled insults are the marks of the intellectually dishonest and the cowardly. Not suprising that you induldge in both given your track record around here.

Mon Jun 18, 2007 5:22 pm

Either prove me wrong or be man enough to admit you are wrong.

Wrong about what? That you don't know how to follow a discussion? I'm not disputing your example of another conflict he had with religious authority. I even linked the link you likely got it from. It supports the same point I made and doesn't contradict what I said. You didn't say my example didn't happen. If you are, I suppose I could prove that, but why would you assert such a thing? The problem is that you are such a poor thinker you don't even know what the argument is about or how one goes about supporting points. It's like trying to play chess with someone who doesn't understand the rules of the game.

Post by **_Mr. Coffee** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 5:48 pm

A Light in the Darkness wrote:Wrong about what? That you don't know how to follow a discussion? I'm not disputing your example of another conflict he had with religious authority. I even linked the link you likely got it from. It supports the same point I made and doesn't contradict what I said.

I never contradicted your point, dumbass. That is the entire point. You keep going on about this imaginary contradiction to your agrument that I made when none exists.

A Light in the Darkness wrote:The problem is that you are such a poor thinker you don't even know what the argument is about or how one goes about supporting points.

Ok, I'll bold this next bit and put in caps to make it easier for you to read...

I WAS ADDING EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS, IDIOT.

That's when you decided to keep on flapping off at the mouth about the atheism angle even though I was arguing for William of Ockham being a theist, the same as you were. I mean, seriously, is it to much to ask that you acknowledge that you were arguing with the wrong person? Are you so stuck on "Willam as a theist" that you can't even tell when someone is AGREEING with you?

A Light in the Darkness wrote:It's like trying to play chess with someone who doesn't understand the rules of the game.

Debating with you is like trying to play chess against someone who thinks they are playing checkers.

Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:00 pm

[quote=Backpeddlin' McGee]I never contradicted your point, dumbass.
[/quote]

Not quite.

You replied to my intial post saying, "Not quite," which is how we English Speakers communicate that something is wrong with a statement someone made. You clearly were saying something was wrong with my understanding of the history of Ockham. I can't post a roll eyes emoticon large enough at this point. I'm more disappointed with myself for getting suckered into replying again than anything.

Post by **_Mr. Coffee** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:07 pm

I'm to much of an idiot to understand how to operate phpBB code even though the exact code I needed was included when I hit the friggin' "quote" button wrote:You replied to my intial post saying, "Not quite," which is how we English Speakers communicate that something is wrong with a statement someone made. You clearly were saying something was wrong with my understanding of the history of Ockham.

Wow, so now there is only one meaning of "not quite" in the english language... Notice that I added to your argument and did not dismiss it or say it was wrong, slack wit?

Oh, yeah... And way to botch your quote tags there, jackass. You forgot to add the qoutation marks.

You fail at debate and you suck at life...

Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:13 pm

Wow, so now there is only one meaning of "not quite" in the english language.

In this context, "not quite" means "something is not quite on with what you said." If your intent was something other than this, then you need to develop your writing skills better.

Oh, yeah... And way to botch your quote tags there, jackass. You forgot to add the qoutation marks.

You fail at debate and you suck at life...

It's amazing how filled with hate and ignorance this board truly is. Yet when a believer listens to the Lord admonishing us about the consequences of abandoning the Spirit, they're just bigots.

Post by **_Mr. Coffee** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:17 pm

A Light in the Darkness wrote:In this context, "not quite" means "something is not quite on with what you said." If your intent was something other than this, then you need to develop your writing skills better.

So now you can dictate the context of something someone else wrote? Holy moving goal posts, Batman!

"Not quite" as in "that's not quite all", dumbass.

A Light in the Darkness wrote:It's amazing how filled with hate and ignorance this board truly is. Yet when a believer listens to the Lord admonishing us about the consequences of abandoning the Spirit, they're just bigots.

Oh wow... Here comes the good old persecution complex... That NEVER get's old.

Oh, and for someone who was ashamed of themselves for respoinding, you must be red-faced and contrite as all hell about now.

Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:29 pm

Mr. Coffee wrote:
So now you can dictate the context of something someone else wrote? Holy moving goal posts, Batman!

"Not quite" as in "that's not quite all", dumbass.

]

Context occurs with what is written down. This is especially true in instances where the writer is terrible, as you insist on making yourself out to be.

Oh wow... Here comes the good old persecution complex... That NEVER get's old.

Yeah, when you direct hate-filled invective at believers, I'm sure you probably hear from time to time that you are hateful. Your response to this? To fault them for a persecution complex. Here's a hint. Persecution complexes are imagined states of persecution that fulfill a person's need to feel persecuted. Actual instances of you being hateful being called out? Not so much.

Post by **_Mr. Coffee** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:46 pm

A Light in the Darkness wrote:Context occurs with what is written down. This is especially true in instances where the writer is terrible, as you insist on making yourself out to be.

Suprisingly enough, no one else in this thread had a hard time at all in understanding what I wrote. That must mean that you're an semi-literate goober. As you continue to prove.

A Light in the Darkness wrote:Yeah, when you direct hate-filled invective at believers, I'm sure you probably hear from time to time that you are hateful.

Hate would imply that I actually have a vested interest in you. I don't. I make fun of you because you deserve ridicule. I make fun of you for the same reason why I used to make fun of marines under me who couldn't perform up to standards, not because I hated them, but because they were unsat and deserved to be made fun of for it.

A Light in the Darkness wrote:To fault them for a persecution complex. Here's a hint. Persecution complexes are imagined states of persecution that fulfill a person's need to feel persecuted.

So when you say "This board is so full of hate", implying that anyone who isn't a MoPo like yourself is a hateful person out to make your life hell, it isn't because you somehow feel persecuted?

Wow... You really are dense, son.

A Light in the Darkness wrote:Actual instances of you being hateful being called out? Not so much.

Oh, how friggin' pathetic can you be, little boy? "Waaaaaa... The teacher isn't telling Jimmy to stop, so the Terach is mean too! Waaaaaaaa!"

Incase you've failed to notice it yet, the admins around here are extremely impartial. Just as they don't ban or censor obvious sockpuppet trolls like yourself, they don't ban me for being "mean" to people. Oh, and I have had the admins censore my posts, so you're whiney little BS about "instances of you being hateful called out" is a flat out lie. I have been called on it.

But then, the admins seem to understand that while I'll take certain suggestions of theres about leaving language in the right forum for it, any calls for me to be "nice" to people are met with a "duly noted" and them promptly round filed by me.