toldailytopic: Do you think TOL bans members too frequently, or not frequently enough
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Re: Sod "I'd have had him permanently banned with all my influence."
That line being offered to counter SD's claims of influence on my part.
That line being offered to counter SD's claims of influence on my part.
That you didn't realize the sarcasm and point of the line is sort of funny...and a little sad.
I think the only qualifications should be fairness and lucidity, so you're out on of luck either way.
Were you ever under the care of a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist?
That's not actually a fact. Prove it.
Do you believe that if you say a thing often enough it's true?
Nope. But when I run into someone like you, who confuses fact and opinion, untrained and unskilled at critical thinking, and when pressed to make her case rests on the unestablished authority of "the reader"...so long as when they chime in they agree with her--then there's really not much else to do.
The devil can quote scripture. But his aim in using it betrays his purpose--as does yours.
I already have a number of times. One more would do what?
I don't know who loves and doesn't love. I know anyone in Christ should. And I don't consider those outside the Body devils. If some of them love me then I'm happy for it and hope it will aid me in my witness to them. That would be terrific.
You removed the scripture from my quote (Eph 4:14). They should choose Christians as administrators in my opinion (Isa 3:12, Lk 6:39).
:yawn: Ad hominem
Proof please.
each:You removed the scripture from my quote (Eph 4:14). I mostly share the word of God (Ac 20:20).
Let the reader decide.
each:You removed the scripture from my quote (Eph 4:14). All of the devils here love you. Why do you think that is? Hos 3:1, Ps 26:5.
I can tell (Hos 3:1, Ps 26:5).
I did remove the scripture from your attempt to link it with garbage. Thank you for admitting it...just wanted to try your approach for a turn.
Inferential ad hom.
But when I run into someone like you, who confuses fact and opinion..."
Almost any post of yours will do.Proof please.
Let the reader decide why.
lain:You tell me. I wasn't expecting that.
Now that would be using a partial quote to alter the meaning...so from here on out don't squeal when I return the favor.Why wait, come to think on it (see: above). :chuckle:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
SD, until you remove the misrepresenting quotes in your signature, you're never going to be in a position to lecture or even have any credulous position, not that it isn't entertaining to see you have your head constantly handed to you on a plate by TH though, or anyone else for that matter....
Serpent writes:
(link to place where Serpent questions the literal Resurrection of Jesus, conveniently editied to hide the fact)
You tried that before. No one bought your new story. Didn't buy the old one, either.
(link to place where Serpent questions the literal Resurrection of Jesus, conveniently editied to hide the fact)
You tried that before. No one bought your new story. Didn't buy the old one, either.
If you believe I misrepresent scripture then make your case. Don't misquote me (Eph 4:14).
Admitting what?
You removed the scripture from my quote (Eph 4:14). They should choose Christians as administrators in my opinion (Isa 3:12, Lk 6:39).
I was thinking about Rusha. Are you asking if I believe you are a Christian? No, I do not (Eph 4:14).
Proof please.
each::yawn: Poisoning the well.
You removed the scripture from my quote (Eph 4:14).
It will become evident to him that you are a deceiver (Eph 4:14).
You misquoted me (Eph 4:14).
You removed the scripture from my quote. I can tell Hos 3:1, Ps 26:5 [enjoying the company of the wicked].
You do it regularly. You have no integrity.
In your small observations thread you posted: "[I'm] going to go ahead and lock down to help SD honor her pledge not to reenter..." link
I have not responded to your thread :dizzy: since receiving infractions from the administrators (1, 2) for doing so. Why do you feel the need to lock it down today? :hammer:
You asked me not to post in your thread because you are Leftist. It is a trait of the left to silence the critic (Eccl 10:2). :Commie: You prove my point.
"...[A]nd to keep the mods from having to referee." link
Burping you would become a full-time job. :baby:
Last edited:
There they are (2 Pe 2:1). :BRAVO:
I do not misrepresent anyone in my signature, AB.
Last edited:
Buy a dictionary. If you own one, burn it and buy a better one.
That's a tough one. Let's look at the quote together and see if, using those razor sharp Eng. 101 skills of yours, we can get at the heart of the enigma.
"I did remove the scripture from your attempt to link it with garbage. Thank you for admitting it..."
It's a tough one all right.
lain: Maybe if you diagrammed it.Strawman...ad hom...ad hoc...ad nauseam...adda boy.
lain:Think harder next time so we can all hear it. :think:
Would a black man ask David Duke for a credit reference? :nono:
Proof please.
You think that reading your posts would poison the well? Well that's refreshingly honest of you. :thumb:
You keep saying that like someone is disputing it...peculiar.
oly:Methinks the lady doth protest too much. And don't think I don't appreciate it, even if I don't. But I'm a married man. You're going to have to keep that sort of thing to yourself.
Else, relax. It was an object lesson. Maybe you'll be better able to distinguish between the real thing and what you keep mistaking it for next time... :thumb:
"And maybe Jesse Jackson will be elected President."
Point taken. Well, one of us has to make one.
Also, I wouldn't worry. The usage was meant it away. :chuckle:
Do your fingers smoke when you type the word out? Just curious. :e4e:
(link to place where Serpent questions the literal Resurrection of Jesus, conveniently editied to hide the fact)
You tried that before. No one bought your new story. Didn't buy the old one, either.
Very true. You edited out my comments saying the Resurrection was a fact. Do you think people don't know that, Serpent? If you like, I can show you once more. If you now accept the fact of the Resurrection, fine. But don't try to change what was said.
How clever do you think you are?
You tried that before. No one bought your new story. Didn't buy the old one, either.
Very true. You edited out my comments saying the Resurrection was a fact. Do you think people don't know that, Serpent? If you like, I can show you once more. If you now accept the fact of the Resurrection, fine. But don't try to change what was said.
How clever do you think you are?
Fact is, you took issue with me when I said the Resurrection was literally true. And then, on your blog, you edited out the part where I told you it was true.
Serpent hisses:
You doubt the Resurrection, and you tell me I don't have a biblical worldview?
Serpent hisses:
You doubt the Resurrection, and you tell me I don't have a biblical worldview?
I quote you exactly.
each: You do not have a biblical worldview. If you'd like to revise or extend your remarks do so in the thread. See:
Barbarian
You're like the Maxwell House of bitter. :chuckle:
I did. I did indeed.
And you were warned away once before but returned only to be warned away again and then receive an infraction. So why should I expect you to be any different at this point?
Because you've demonstrated that you can't be relied upon to honor the mods' instruction. Supra.
Did I? I remember you saying that if I didn't ask you to you still wouldn't. So that seems like over-kill. And I'm not a leftist, so that would never be a part of my request if I made one... If you meant to imply that as my motivation for not wanting your posts then you should have inserted a comma before the subordinate clause.
It's also the trait of a good parent when their child is screaming in a restaurant.
Now why wouldn't anyone want that sort of important, substantive and witty repartee all over their thread. The peculiar punctuation at the end of that indicates that it's a rhetorical statement. That means you'll likely answer it anyway.
I assumed you would not want me in your thread. Am wrong to assume that? You closed the thread down for little ol' me. You would like to open it back up and invite me back into it? :jump:
Last edited:
Given your opinion of it and me I can't imagine why you'd want to be there, except to launch the sort of purely personal nonsense that had you warned off.
You're wrong in assuming all sorts of things. Else, supra.
Nah, I just locked the gate. I can post whenever I want to. It's not closed for business, only to your forgetting yourself, as you have in the past. :thumb:
Why would I like that? :idunno:
Great. I'm waiting for my invite.
Last edited:
I had a feeling (Eccl 10:2). :Commie: summaryHow well do you handle suspense? :think: