Replies

First off, we don't bring up posts on other threads to accuse other posters.

Actually CTM was asked for evidence to support her statements about obb BY obb in post 195. Her providing them is not the same as thread hopping to accuse other posters. He asked for evidence about himself and she provided it. I don't see that that breaches any FR courtesy rules. JR has provided posting guidelines and she certainly did not break any of those and the rest is just courtesy that has been established as the site has gone along.

What she provided was not much different than directing some one to the posting history of a particular FReeper, which is there for all to see but since he asked for specifics, there's nothing wrong with her providing them. As a matter of fact, I've seen FReepers shredded recently for NOT providing posts to back up their statements with the not so subtle insinuations that the person is making them up and lying. Here's the dilemma: if she doesn't provide them, she leaves herself open to accusations of lying and slander; if she does, she's chastised for providing the information asked for.

So what's she to do?

Here's the dilemma: if she doesn't provide them, she leaves herself open to accusations of lying and slander; if she does, she's chastised for providing the information asked for.

So what's she to do?

Well if she takes up the evo flag & joins the ping list, the rules don't apply anymore.

If she did do that, then in fact the contradictions can become so convoluted she could probably spend her whole time shredding 'creationists', attacking people that post Scripture, rarely if ever post any herself, and simultaneously pay (gape jawed) homage to the GM/sarc> have friendly chat-ups with evo posters who put up nasty sac-religious imagery, and still call herself a Christian.

However I think that spot might already be taken. And while I don't know the poster, I doubt that would be the kind of thing she went for anyway.

Wolf

> So what's she to do?

She could have read things in their proper context. She saw a complaint about *her* as being a complaint about her *religion*. Specifically: "I seem to recall *some* religion or other had a minor provision that said that "bearing false witness" was a general no-no (it was probably in the small print, somewhere in a little-used Appendix at the back).... but I'm sure you'll get special dispensation."

Where do you see a slam of some religion in *that*? Only the completely sarcasm-impaired would miss the message.