I'll leave it to the Suziannes of this world to fret over whether what they type "enhances" their reputation or not. I will just be frank, tenacious, and try to keep on topic, as I have been for years, and people can make of it what they want.
My comment to DeepThought (above) is related to the OP poster's unwillingness and/or inability to engage properly or sincerely any response to or discussion of the material he has typed/pasted. He has reproduced copious stuff which demonstrates that Christianity is a religion and has dodged talking about this when pointed out to him.
Suzianne's comment about "reputation" has absolutely nothing to do with "Why Christianity is NOT a Religion".
Originally posted by FMF I'll leave it to the Suziannes of this world to fret over whether what they type "enhances" their reputation or not. I will just be frank, tenacious, and try to keep on topic, as I have been for years, and people can make of it what they want.
My comment to DeepThought (above) is related to the OP poster's unwillingness and/or inability to engage properly or ...[text shortened]... mment about "reputation" has absolutely nothing to do with "Why Christianity is NOT a Religion".
Originally posted by Suzianne
"Do you think that attack posts such as this actually enhance your reputation among readers of this forum?"
Originally posted by FMF
"I don't think about it at all. I just read what people write and write what I want to write."
To which I replied; "Ditto".
My "ditto" to your comment has nothing to do with the exchange between you and Suzianne. Do you always have to be so squirrelly?
Originally posted by josephw My "ditto" to your comment has nothing to do with the exchange between you and Suzianne. Do you always have to be so squirrelly?
You said "ditto" to something I said in a direct reply to what Suzianne had said.
Originally posted by FMF I'll leave it to the Suziannes of this world to fret over whether what they type "enhances" their reputation or not. I will just be frank, tenacious, and try to keep on topic, as I have been for years, and people can make of it what they want.
My comment to DeepThought (above) is related to the OP poster's unwillingness and/or inability to engage properly or ...[text shortened]... mment about "reputation" has absolutely nothing to do with "Why Christianity is NOT a Religion".
It was not a comment, but a question to you about *your* reputation, not mine. Something you do indeed "fret" over, given your tendency to attack relentlessly without removing your jaws from your target, at least until you are "cornered" by your next target.
That you make a point to tell *me* (in third-person, no less... hmmm, who else does this?) that I'm off-topic is humorous. Do you see yourself as some sort of self-styled forum "law enforcement"? Is that why you mindlessly attack the same posters over and over and over again? Do you see them as somehow "divergent"?
It was not a comment, but a question to you about *your* reputation, not mine. Something you do indeed "fret" over, given your tendency to attack relentlessly without removing your jaws from your target, at least until you are "cornered" by your next target.
That you make a point to tell *me* (in third-person, no less... hmmm, who else does this?) that I'm off-topic is humorous. Do you see yourself as some sort of self-styled forum "law enforcement"? Is that why you mindlessly attack the same posters over and over and over again? Do you see them as somehow "divergent"?
I just read what people want to write and write what I want to write. I don't obsess over my supposed "reputation" in the way you obviously do.
Originally posted by josephw But the "ditto" was in direct reply to your post only. It was the content of your post and not its context I dittoed. 😕
The "it" in "I don't think about it at all" ~ part of the post you said "ditto" to ~ referred obviously and unambiguously to Suzianne's fervid commentary about my alleged "reputation". "I don't think about it at all" was the context of the post that you dittoed. 🙂
Originally posted by FMF [b]It was not a comment, but a question to you about *your* reputation, not mine. Something you do indeed "fret" over, given your tendency to attack relentlessly without removing your jaws from your target, at least until you are "cornered" by your next target.
That you make a point to tell *me* (in third-person, no less... hmmm, who else does this?) that I' ...[text shortened]... what I want to write. I don't obsess over my supposed "reputation" in the way you obviously do.
So, you don't want to answer the questions. You're lucky I'm not obsessing over it the way you hound GB to the ends of the earth.
It might be nice, though, if what you wrote had some connection to what others write, besides your usual preening behavior.
I don't obsess over my supposed "reputation" in the way you obviously do.
That's obvious. I don't obsess. Your continual, constant attacks on every single GB post shows that your obsession is huge. I respond to what others write. I don't concern myself with my appearance in the forum as you do. This is why I often leave myself open to attack by unbelievers, I'm not thinking about it. Everything you write seems crafted to dodge potential nay-saying.
Originally posted by FMF The "it" in "I don't think about it at all" ~ part of the post you said "ditto" to ~ referred obviously and unambiguously to Suzianne's fervid commentary about my alleged "reputation". "I don't think about it at all" was the context of the post that you dittoed. 🙂
I don't think about your reputation at all either. As a Christian my concern is for your soul. You, not some persona!
When you said, "I just read what people write and write what I want to write", I thought more positively about that, and I dittoed.
You needn't always take exception to everything one says.
Originally posted by josephw You needn't always take exception to everything one says.
I don't think I've ever "taken exception" to anything you say. Why would I? I don't agree with some things you say, I find some things you say inconsistent or incoherent. Is that what you mean by "taking exception"? I just read what you write and respond. Bog standard message board activity. I don't need you to like what I say. Both you and Suzianne in recent posts have been trying to project motivations onto me which are figments of your imagination. Your behaviour - both yours and hers - is interesting.
Originally posted by FMF I don't think I've ever "taken exception" to anything you say. Why would I? I don't agree with some things you say, I find some things you say inconsistent or incoherent. Is that what you mean by "taking exception"? I just read what you write and respond. Bog standard message board activity. I don't need you to like what I say. Both you and Suzianne in recent po ...[text shortened]... e which are figments of your imagination. Your behaviour - both yours and hers - is interesting.
Wouldn't you say you're being a bit defensive?
Doesn't seem to be much one can say to you without it becoming an interrogation.
Originally posted by josephw Wouldn't you say you're being a bit defensive? Doesn't seem to be much one can say to you without it becoming an interrogation.
Me defensive? Not at all. Forthright and tenacious if anything. Not defensive at all. Evasive, waffling, or pompous purveyors of half-baked ideas might feel a bit 'interrogated' from time to time.
Are you on the 'Christianity is NOT a Religion' side or 'Christianity IS a Religion' side?
"Why Christianity is NOT a Religion"
24 Jan '15 01:51
Back to Top