Originally posted by SuzianneYou would, in all seriousness, describe me as "never confronting" people on this forum?
Never confronting, only slithering around in the background, getting other people to do your confronting for you, always appearing to be "the nice guy" or as "appealing to reason". Please.
1 edit
Originally posted by AgergThanks for your response - yes, it was indeed a serious question.
Putting aside my scepticism[hidden]Because I'm being heckled by Suzianne, and fighting back ... and she's on your side[/hidden], I'll take this one at face value.
My day job, far away from what I studied at uni (pure maths) is as a software developer (mainly C++ but a few other languages thrown in on the side).
As for the poem, I have yet to write the thi ...[text shortened]... Larry Wall, it'll be ready by Christmas [hidden]Though don't ask me *which* Christmas![/hidden].
Pure maths - it figures. But that isn't too far from software development, at least in my understanding of it.
And this statement is also genuine - I absolutely love to see somebody really good at a job that I have no skills in (e.g. programming or carpentry)
But back into the scrum....
😀
1 edit
Originally posted by wolfgang59If you try and debate spirituality then it is a sign that you are not serious at all.
Stop bringing it up in debates then!
Spirituality is not debatable.
Debating spirituality is like debating your 3x table.
You cannot debate the 3x table because it is just fact after fact.
However mundane false religion is debatable but it is like flogging a dead horse.......................(it will not race)
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFOh, sure, you confront people, if you consider insulting and trying to present people in the worst possible light as "confronting". No, I mean confronting with ideas, not words meant to inflame (despite your protests of such).
You would, in all seriousness, describe me as "never confronting" people on this forum?
Originally posted by SuzianneThe really great thing with this little gem is that whilst slighting a considerable number of posters, you never have to prove that you didn't just pull this claim out of your arse. Why!? Well there are two cases:
Riiiight. Maybe you get your "recruits" to do it for you?
a) Nobody asks you to justify what you said - in which case the statement stands
b) At least one person asks you to justify it - in this case you claim that for each person asking you to prove this, they are "recruits" of FMF, and the statement still stands 😵
Originally posted by AgergPeople who are convinced that Satan is at work directing the actions of his demonic minions will have no problem fitting FMF and his recruits into the organizational chart. It's a given, needing no proof.
The really great thing with this little gem is that whilst slighting a considerable number of posters[hidden]for example, those who have read your posts and asked: wtf!???[/hidden], you never have to prove that you didn't just pull this claim out of your arse. Why!? Well there are two cases:
a) Nobody asks you to justify what you said - in which case the st ...[text shortened]... h person asking you to prove this, they are "recruits" of FMF, and the statement still stands 😵
Originally posted by SuzianneI "confront" people with ideas and challenge their ideas all the time. I've been doing it for years. And I welcome people doing the same to me.
Oh, sure, you confront people, if you consider insulting and trying to present people in the worst possible light as "confronting". No, I mean confronting with ideas, not words meant to inflame (despite your protests of such).
Originally posted by SuzianneI think thumbs down might signal disagreement or dislike but I don't think there is any conspiracy.
You've already posted what you want people to think about all the downvotes. And, of course, it *must* be a conspiracy because people can't possibly be actually disagreeing with what you write, right?
Originally posted by SuzianneMore comedy gold from the bag-lady!
Don't you?
You've already posted what you want people to think about all the downvotes. And, of course, it *must* be a conspiracy because people can't possibly be actually disagreeing with what you write, right?
Conspiracy wasn't mentioned until you brought it up!
Now you covertly accuse FMF of it! 🙄
Originally posted by wolfgang59It was FMF who first suggested Suzi was talking about a conspiracy... which kind of proves her point, doesn't it?
More comedy gold from the bag-lady!
Conspiracy wasn't mentioned until [b]you brought it up!
Now you covertly accuse FMF of it! 🙄[/b]
The same people who call Christians stupid, ignorant, delusional (and other terms of endearment) have been active at this forum and now want to moderate threads here. Suzi has only been pointing out the obvious, but if it isn't obvious to the rest of you then maybe it's not the Christians who are being stupid, ignorant, delusional, etc.
Originally posted by lemon limemea culpa
It was FMF who first suggested Suzi was talking about a conspiracy... which kind of proves her point, doesn't it?
The same people who call Christians stupid, ignorant, delusional (and other terms of endearment) have been active at this forum and now want to moderate threads here. Suzi has only been pointing out the obvious, but if it isn't obvio ...[text shortened]... f you then maybe it's not the Christians who are being stupid, ignorant, delusional, etc.
Originally posted by lemon limeI don't think you are right. It was Suzianne who raised the notion that there is a conspiracy. I said, "I don't thumb down anybody". Her response was, "Riiiight. Maybe you get your "recruits" to do it for you?" The suggestion that I "recruit" people to thumb down people "for" me is a nonsense conspiracy theory.
It was FMF who first suggested Suzi was talking about a conspiracy... which kind of proves her point, doesn't it?