Spirituality
12 Feb 06
17 Feb 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI don't mind a little cr@p, so long as there's an air of civility. Insult by insinuation being case in point. Freaky hasn't transgressed there IMO.
I've merely spotted a tendency; I haven't drawn any conclusions.
What's your opinion?
This reminds me of RatX and Frogstomp having it out - it was always fun to watch.
17 Feb 06
Originally posted by HalitoseI don't think you get my little joke after all. Rats.
I don't mind a little cr@p, so long as there's an air of civility. Insult by insinuation being case in point. Freaky hasn't transgressed there IMO.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
17 Feb 06
Originally posted by royalchickenlol
LOL. Someone please given a coherent definition of 'chaos' to which it is sensible to apply the adjective 'eternal'.
Then I suppose "Chaos" cannot quite be said in the same breath as "God"?đ
i.e. if you are very short of breath.
17 Feb 06
Originally posted by HalitoseYou actually detect an air of civility in Freaky's diatribe? Wow. You are imaginative!
I don't mind a little cr@p, so long as there's an air of civility. Insult by insinuation being case in point. Freaky hasn't transgressed there IMO.
17 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYou claim the cr@p throwing was initiated by me; this isn't true. The cr@p line came in response to muleboogar's post of utter incoherence. If you seek the cr@p slinger, look no further than his post. "Cr@p" was not referring to any idea he was positing, rather to the splatter effect of his post in general. It was a meandering random mess of gibberish.
Not really. FreakyKBH leapt straight from the same mould. Right down to his penchant for throwing cr@p around.
17 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzWith all due respect, Dawkins is an @$$ and a plagiariser. His outspoken and abrasive atheist agenda leaves little doubt of his insufferable prejudice. He's not dubbed "Darwin's Rottweiler" for nothing.
Indeed, read Dawkins "selfish gene". Especially the chapter on the genetics of bees and ants.
17 Feb 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHShow where coherence breaks down, if you can. I find it comic that you make such a claim. Your posts border on incoherence, as others have noted. After my cut and paste rejoinder to your best post so far, you put forth ad hominems and utter nonsense in a post that you should find embarrasing.
You claim the cr@p throwing was initiated by me; this isn't true. The cr@p line came in response to muleboogar's post of utter incoherence. If you seek the cr@p slinger, look no further that his post. "Cr@p" was not referring to any idea he was positing, rather to the splatter effect of his post in general. It was a meandering random mess of gibberish.
I'll grant that the post in question meandered, as it followed the logical sequence of your post in its entirety.
I regret that I replied with an ad hominem of my own (quoting your self-censure). It was the first time I had fallen to that depth on these forums in a long time.
Sir, we have no argument because you have presented neither evidence nor coherent logic. If you will write grammatically correct sentences that express clear ideas (I'll overlook your horrendous spelling), I'll be more than happy to engage in the debate. So far, you have presented only the barest sliver of an idea, and you have rejected civility. I'll not waste any more time with this quarrel.
BTW, others who have corrupted my name on this site have at least demonstrated comprehension of its correct pronunciation and its meaning. Where do you find the mule?
17 Feb 06
Originally posted by HalitoseThe biggest Dick in sociobiology is a plagiarist! Pray tell, give me the references to his accusers.
With all due respect, Dawkins is an @$$ and a plagiariser. His outspoken and abrasive atheist agenda leaves little doubt of his insufferable prejudice. He's not dubbed "Darwin's Rottweiler" for nothing.