Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Seriously: "Try reading my first two posts on page one and the articles at the links provided." By doing so, you should be able to understand where I'm coming from. If you have questions about those posts, I'll be glad to answer them.

No, as you have already been misunderstood by more than one poster I think it is easier if you just picked out the specific blatant comments that GB has made ("spewed" in your terms) so we can be clear about what you are referring to. Thanks.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Seriously: "Try reading my first two posts on page one and the articles at the links provided." By doing so, you should be able to understand where I'm coming from. If you have questions about those posts, I'll be glad to answer them.

It's pretty clear that GB is fear mongering without regard to the truthfulness of his posts.

Truthfulness. Is that a relative term?

Originally posted by divegeester
No, as you have already been misunderstood by more than one poster I think it is easier if you just picked out the specific blatant comments that GB has made ("spewed" in your terms) so we can be clear about what you are referring to. Thanks.

No, as you have already been misunderstood by more than one poster..."

You think it might have anything to do with the fact that "more than one poster" seems to have neglected to actually read what I've been posting before going off half-cocked?

Originally posted by josephw
Truthfulness. Is that a relative term?

Well, let's see. In response to a request by another poster to provide examples that "Sharia...has been seeping into ..., UK, Canada and America" as GB asserted, GB quoted an article from the National Report which "publishes outrageous fictional stories such as 'IRS Plans to Target Leprechauns Next'. In other words, GB referred to a completely fictional article in an attempt to prop up his assertion. What type of "truthfulness" would you consider that to be?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]No, as you have already been misunderstood by more than one poster..."

You think it might have anything to do with the fact that "more than one poster" seems to have neglected to actually read what I've been posting before going off half-cocked?[/b]

Well, if no one is reading your posts, then why bother?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Well, let's see. In response to request by another poster to provide examples that "Sharia...has been seeping into ..., UK, Canada and America" as GB asserted, GB quoted an article from the National Report which "publishes outrageous fictional stories such as 'IRS Plans to Target Leprechauns Next'. In other words, GB referred to a completely fictional art ...[text shortened]... an attempt to prop up his assertion. What type of "truthfulness" would you consider that to be?

Would you be willing to accept Sharia Law as the law of the land where you live? Would you support its enforcement as apposed to what you now have?

Originally posted by josephw
Well, if no one is reading your posts, then why bother?

When others make assertions about my posts that are way off base, seems like the proper course of action is to correct them. Seems reasonable enough to ask them to actually read what I've been posting, don't you think?

Originally posted by josephw
Would you be willing to accept Sharia Law as the law of the land where you live? Would you support its enforcement as apposed to what you now have?

Seriously? This is your response to my post? Did you even bother to read it? Have you bothered to read very much of what I've been posting on this thread?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
When others make assertions about my posts that are way off base, seems like the proper course of action is to correct them. Seems reasonable enough to ask them to actually read what I've been posting, don't you think?

Perfectly reasonable.

I think your posts are being read, but I don't think you understand their replies.

I mean, you have it your mind what you know you mean by what you say, but by the time someone else reads it and correlates it to what they think you mean and then posts their reply,..it makes no sense to you.

Originally posted by josephw
Perfectly reasonable.

I think your posts are being read, but I don't think you understand their replies.

I mean, you have it your mind what you know you mean by what you say, but by the time someone else reads it and correlates it to what they think you mean and then posts their reply,..it makes no sense to you.

If that's true, then you should be able to help.

Sonhouse posted the following:
"So I gather you heartily approve of Sharia law and the points raised by GB are never carried out in the real world."

Please demonstrate how he could have reasonably drawn those conclusions if he had read all my posts.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Seriously? This is your response to my post? Did you even bother to read it? Have you bothered to read very much of what I've been posting on this thread?

Yes I read your post(s). And I know what you wanted me to understand. But rather than giving you a direct answer I took a leap forward to a more important point, one I believe Grampy Bobby made perfectly clear, a point you appeared not to have comprehended, i.e. Sharia Law is without mercy, and is not blind, but rather, cruel and harsh and sexist to say the least.

Perhaps YOU should learn to read!

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
If that's true, then you should be able to help.

Sonhouse posted the following:
"So I gather you heartily approve of Sharia law and the points raised by GB are never carried out in the real world."

Please demonstrate how he could have reasonably drawn those conclusions if he had read all my posts.

Because you failed to understand GB's posts and the intent of them.

Originally posted by josephw
Yes I read your post(s). And I know what you wanted me to understand. But rather than giving you a direct answer I took a leap forward to a more important point, one I believe Grampy Bobby made perfectly clear, a point you appeared not to have comprehended, i.e. Sharia Law is without mercy, and is not blind, but rather, cruel and harsh and sexist to say the least.

Perhaps YOU should learn to read!

Let's see. My first post referenced an article that made points such as:
1) There is no one thing called sharia. A variety of Muslim communities exist, and each understands sharia in its own way.

2)The "sharia threat" argument is based on an extreme type of scripturalism where one pulls out verses from a sacred text and argues that believers will behave according to that text. But this argument ignores how believers themselves understand and interpret that text over time. The equivalent would be saying that Jews stone disobedient sons to death (Deut. 21:18- 21) or that Christians slay all non-Christians (Luke 19:27)...

Based on what you've posted here, it would seem that you believe that there IS one thing called Sharia Law. The article I cited disputes this assertion. On what do you base your belief?

It would also seem that your concept of "Sharia Law" is based upon the the "extreme type of scripturalism" cited above. Would you think it proper for someone to take Luke 19:27 out of context and claim that "Christians are ordered to slay all non-Christians"?

Seriously. Read the article that the link in my first post on this thread points to.

Originally posted by josephw
Because you failed to understand GB's posts and the intent of them.

Let me see if I understand you correctly.

You believe that it was reasonable to draw the following conclusions about what I think, not based upon what I posted, but rather based upon what GB posted. You're going to have to explain that to me.

"So I gather you heartily approve of Sharia law and the points raised by GB are never carried out in the real world."

Because you failed to understand GB's posts and the intent of them.

What do you make of the fact that GB presented a work of fiction as fact in his zeal to provide evidence that "Sharia..has been seeping into Europe, UK, Canada and America "? With that in mind, do you conclude that GB is primarily interested in providing facts about Sharia Law? Or is he more likely primarily interested in fear mongering? EDIT: What do you make of the fact that GB still hasn't presented evidence of this even though WG59 has made repeated requests that he do so? What do you make of the fact that GB has refused to retract that assertion even though he cannot provide that evidence and WG59 has requested that he do so?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Let me see if I understand you correctly.

You believe that it was reasonable to draw the following conclusions about what I think, not based upon what I posted, but rather based upon what GB posted. You're going to have to explain that to me.

"So I gather you heartily approve of Sharia law and the points raised by GB are never carried out in the r ...[text shortened]... n providing facts about Sharia Law? Or is he more likely primarily interested in fear mongering?

Fear mongering?

Ever hear of Sharia Law?