GG Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 I said I had a point in page one. I guess you skipped over that. I didnt want to get into another discussion. I simply wanted the person I was debating with to see the article. Leave it up to the members of TBD to make every thread as ridiculous as possible. If you dont like a thread > dont reply to it. I thought the rule-set of PPP is, if you're afraid of confrontation, don't start a topic in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquix Posted April 6, 2007 Author Share Posted April 6, 2007 I thought the rule-set of PPP is, if you're afraid of confrontation, don't start a topic in the first place? I never said I was afraid of confrontation. I simply did not want to get in the same debate that already existed in a thread about the same subject months ago that had 5+ pages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 I never said I was afraid of confrontation. I simply did not want to get in the same debate that already existed in a thread about the same subject months ago that had 5+ pages. Yeah, and topics here never have a life of their own to go on forever? Strike that. They have 3.5 lives of their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquix Posted April 6, 2007 Author Share Posted April 6, 2007 Yeah, and topics here never have a life of their own to go on forever? Strike that. They have 3.5 lives of their own. Well thats what I DIDNT want this thread to turn into. Another debate that this forum has had countless times. If I could find the thread that originally had the debate I would have posted the article in there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketch Soland Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 I never said I was afraid of confrontation. I simply did not want to get in the same debate that already existed in a thread about the same subject months ago that had 5+ pages. You have to expect people to respond to a thread you make in the PPP board. If you don't want to get in the same debate, why keep posting and replying to the replies in this thread? You are just stoking the fires of those that do want to debate this issue, an issue, I might add, that didn't just dry up because there's already been an existing thread on it a couple months ago. Me thinks you doth protest too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 I said I had a point in page one. I guess you skipped over that. I didnt want to get into another discussion. I simply wanted the person I was debating with to see the article. Leave it up to the members of TBD to make every thread as ridiculous as possible. If you dont like a thread > dont reply to it. I guess you skipped over the THIRD POST where you didn't have a point, and it was "just an article". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquix Posted April 6, 2007 Author Share Posted April 6, 2007 You have to expect people to respond to a thread you make in the PPP board. If you don't want to get in the same debate, why keep posting and replying to the replies in this thread? You are just stoking the fires of those that do want to debate this issue, an issue, I might add, that didn't just dry up because there's already been an existing thread on it a couple months ago. Me thinks you doth protest too much. Are people really not getting this? I have no problem with people responding to the article. Respond, talk about it, or just ignore it. But the last 3 pages have nothing to do with the article and everything to do with me. As I said in page 2 to Uconn James. I should have put a disclaimer. I guess you skipped over the THIRD POST where you didn't have a point, and it was "just an article". I have explained why I said that multiple times. If you still dont know, then im sorry but I dont know any other way to help you understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketch Soland Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 Are people really not getting this? I have no problem with people responding to the article. Respond, talk about it, or just ignore it. But the last 3 pages have nothing to do with the article and everything to do with me. As I said in page 2 to Uconn James. I should have put a disclaimer. So continuing to respond to posts defending yourself is going to make the thread less about you? Especially considering that the rest of us don't seem to get it, as you say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquix Posted April 6, 2007 Author Share Posted April 6, 2007 So continuing to respond to posts defending yourself is going to make the thread less about you? Especially considering that the rest of us don't seem to get it, as you say? When people are attacked (or flamed ... whatever way is the proper lingo in todays internet), they tend to try and defend themselves. But you're right. I am done with this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 When people are attacked (or flamed ... whatever way is the proper lingo in todays internet), they tend to try and defend themselves. But you're right. I am done with this thread. Congratulations, you just made an evolutionary leap beyond the realm of 3.5 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 Congratulations, you just made an evolutionary leap beyond the realm of 3.5 . Nobody ever said daquix was stupid. ...well...actually most people have at one time or another. But no one ever said he was as stupid as Holcomb's Arm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outsidethebox Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 OK everybody, stop the brow beating. You can all go back to your southpark, american idol and hot pockets ( you know, the REAL important things in life ). There is nothing to see here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 Well thats what I DIDNT want this thread to turn into. Another debate that this forum has had countless times. If I could find the thread that originally had the debate I would have posted the article in there. Guys, I guess we should lay off because I get it now. He posted this as the "last word" for his previous post. Ya see if the other thread was still open he would have put it there where nobody else would have replied to it! Why are you making this so hard! Why are you calling someone on such an obvious lie? Post #3 [ quote]QUOTE(DC Tom @ Apr 4 2007, 06:27 PM) Lots of scientists beileve in God. The Vatican even believes in science, these days. What's your point? Just an article, my friend. Why can't you just accept that saying he was just posting an article and then saying that it was really a response to a previous thread aren't contradictory? Why would you find that insulting? Just admit you were trying to make a point about religion because you want to spread the word. All we're asking you to do is admit it. Quit saying anything but that. You don't want to say that because then you'll really be razzed. Like this... Don't spit in my face and tell me it's raining!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 Guys, I guess we should lay off because I get it now. He posted this as the "last word" for his previous post. Ya see if the other thread was still open he would have put it there where nobody else would have replied to it! Why are you making this so hard! Why are you calling someone on such an obvious lie? Why can't you just accept that saying he was just posting an article and then saying that it was really a response to a previous thread aren't contradictory? Why would you find that insulting? Just admit you were trying to make a point about religion because you want to spread the word. All we're asking you to do is admit it. Quit saying anything but that. You don't want to say that because then you'll really be razzed. Like this... Don't spit in my face and tell me it's raining!! Once again we are caught up in a logical morass of irreducible complexity, which in itself is proof of the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, for only His noodley tendrils could have could have convoluted this thread so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 Once again we are caught up in a logical morass of irreducible complexity, which in itself is proof of the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, for only His noodley tendrils could have could have convoluted this thread so. I've been trying like hell to hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but apparently my fetzer valve can't reach the right frequency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted April 7, 2007 Share Posted April 7, 2007 Wow, what a thread.... What I found interesting about the article is his mention of C.S. Lewis - my favorite author. His books - particularly 'Mere Christianity' - really helped me to find some solid ground in terms of how science and faith related to one another. I remember reading Mere Christianity and just being amazed that he was using the process of reason to determine where he stood on matters of faith and the existence of God. I consider myself a Christian, but I get tired of the "rah-rah" type of Christian authorship and rhetoric that is nothing more than an appeal to your emotions. I suppose that has its place, but I think there are a lot of people with brains who want something a bit more intellectually meaty. I'm always mindful of Freud's position on religion and the psychology of those who latch on to ANY sort of identity for desperate reasons. I think examples of this sort of thing are everywhere. C.S. Lewis was the antithesis of this, and I consider his writings to be among the most influential of my life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 7, 2007 Share Posted April 7, 2007 Wow, what a thread.... What I found interesting about the article is his mention of C.S. Lewis - my favorite author. His books - particularly 'Mere Christianity' - really helped me to find some solid ground in terms of how science and faith related to one another. I remember reading Mere Christianity and just being amazed that he was using the process of reason to determine where he stood on matters of faith and the existence of God. I consider myself a Christian, but I get tired of the "rah-rah" type of Christian authorship and rhetoric that is nothing more than an appeal to your emotions. I suppose that has its place, but I think there are a lot of people with brains who want something a bit more intellectually meaty. I'm always mindful of Freud's position on religion and the psychology of those who latch on to ANY sort of identity for desperate reasons. I think examples of this sort of thing are everywhere. C.S. Lewis was the antithesis of this, and I consider his writings to be among the most influential of my life. Hey, look, a point! Take notes, daquix... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketch Soland Posted April 8, 2007 Share Posted April 8, 2007 Once again we are caught up in a logical morass of irreducible complexity, which in itself is proof of the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, for only His noodley tendrils could have could have convoluted this thread so. This is going in my signature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts