On 7/8/2011 9:47 AM, Sam wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 11:36 PM, PT<cft...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I am pretty reasonable, or I like to think so .. hope so. I wasn't >> speaking about this particular conversation, more commenting on a >> pattern I have noticed over the years. > > So you seem to miss a lot. I'm very consistent about frivolousness > attracts. My position is to ask folks to back up > their slander which usually turns to deflection, tangents and name > calling.
I am willing to admit I miss some things. I don't read every post on this list, but I did read this entire conversation, right up until I commented, in one sitting. I don't think I missed anything this time around, but we all like to think that, even if our interpretations of what was said are completely "WTF?" to many others. Now it's all > women Republicans are stupid fundies forcing Americans to convert. > > But thanks for the lurker eval. > Here's what I think: > What a great post. I spend hours on the net reading comments, about > tons of various subjects. I have to first of all give praise to > whoever created your theme and second of all to you for writing what i > can only describe as an fabulous comment. I honestly believe there is > a skill to writing articles that only very few posses and honestly you > got it. The combining of demonstrative and upper-class content is by > all odds super rare with the astronomic amount of comments on the > cyberspace. > I have bookmarked, Dugg, and I joined the RSS subscription. Thanks! . Whoo I am going to be famous! > Weird because that's what he said about Palin and Bachmann. Maybe I > took liberties when I said ALL. This is part of what I was talking about. You often take liberties and then respond by asking the person to defend their comments against the liberties you have taken. Maybe it is just your style, but I seriously have to stop reading sometimes and try to figure out if you are trolling. Generally, I think not. It is probably a combination of interpretations, liberties and style of argument. > It is clear, you just need to pay attention. I like shiny things. > very interesting ways indeed > I guess he was joking or I forced him to think that way? I doubt it and I doubt you forced him to think how you think he is thinking. > Ah now it's "leaning" ...Well she's not a fundy as he claimed, it > turns out that being more than moderately religious is fundy enough > for him. Yes, leaning, just as she is definitely not leaning towards devil worship. Leaning is my word. It has nothing to do with changing the definition of anything. > My spin is the same, if you don't like or trust religious people come > right out and say it. Don't tar and feather her as an extremist to > cover your bigotry. You seem to insist on making this a "You don't like fundamentalists, so you hate all religious people" (which I still don't see mentioned until you made a connection and brought it up). Bigotry has nothing to do with it. Her ability to perform an extremely critical job that impacts the lives of millions was called into question by concerns that she may not act in the best interest of the people, rather on her religious convictions. I don't care if the PotUS believes in the flying spaghetti monster. As long as they keep it out of the legislation, they are fine. > She never said she does. See that's the tar and feather part. He > should thank you for putting your toe to the line. I am not toeing any line. In my own personal opinion, suggesting that ID be taught in the classroom is enough to concern me. 1. Evolution is not an origin theory. 2. She doesn't seem to know what the word theory means in this context. 3. She wants an alternative explanation based on religion taught in the classroom, but only her brand. If schools were to teach origin theories of all religions, or at least the major ones, I would be all for that. I would find a class like that interesting. If all are not represented, then none should be. > Let it be clear that you question the credibility of people of faith. Are you saying let it be clear that I do, or that people in general should be clear about this being their motivation? > Well shit now that is a damn good reason not to vote for her! > But if you said you won't vote for her because of her beliefs alone I > would call you a bigot. > >> I believe that is the gist of the original argument too, before all of >> the spinning and logic-leaping happened. > > You just did a hell of a job spinning his argument. Not really. I just explained my interpretation of the beginning of this thread and tossed in my own beliefs and reservations concerning the topic. > Actually I do which is what bothers many. Occasionally I know when to > let dead horses lie but not often enough. It seems you really don't > pay attention, must be half lurk mode y Often, yes, which is why I remain silent on many of the threads that pop up. I do skim through most of them though .. enough to recognize what I see as a pattern. Maybe I, too, am misinterpreting. I am fairly certain that 2/3 of the 'discussions' here are because of this. Someone misunderstands what someone says and then the words get twisted, and people start arguing about different, but related topics. It all ends in confusion, tears, apathy and the gnashing of teeth. During all of this, some names pop up more often than others. ; ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:340108 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
