Mercury’s Magnetic Field is Young!

CMI ^ | Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.

[Agamemnon]

So, I've been here for 11 years, does that give me the right to tell you to "buzz off"? Find someone here for 12 years, and they can tell me to "buzz off"?

Got you beat by three months Rebel.

Now just do as the man says and buzz off.

[DevNet]

It amazes that one can claim to be a Christian yet keep spreading rumors about anyone who doesn’t agree with you.

I mean you do this to every single person who has a new account who dares to disagree with you. Such behavior is childish as rather than debate someone you throw stuff and try to make it stick.

3

[eldoradude]

The rivalries are fine. The important thing to remember is that we’re on the same side.

That's right. We all bleed American red.

I was a Marine, Dad was Navy, my cousin was Army. Good natured joshing, nothing to try to incite a fight within the family. I would hope FReepers are similarly family.

I have faith, because I choose faith. I don't ask God or Jesus for trivial things, the one time in my adult life that I really needed, Jesus answered my prayer and came through with a solution almost immediately.

The math doesn't lie - there IS God...and there ISN'T God. You choose through free will which gate you pass through - eternal life or oblivion.

The caveat to taking the Bible literally is that it has been tranlated several times, first through the mind of man and then from one language to another. There's a lot of unintended error in that process...and I won't even comment on the latest "gender-free" abomination, lest I get zapped for the use of profanity.

[metmom]

You’re back eh, What rock have you been hiding under?

[Wacka]

Then editor surveyor must be an infant, He got pretty scatological about 50 or so posts back.
That is being a good christian????

[metmom]

I mean you do this to every single person who has a new account who dares to disagree with you.

Talk about spreading rumors. Care to back that up?

Please provide the links to back up your assertion that I do this with EVERY single person with a new account who dares to disagree with me.

Or own the lie.

[Rebel_Ace]

You derided socialismislost for his spelling error. In GGG's reply to that very post, he wrote, and I quote:

"...And btw, while socialists are lost by definition, socialism is on the march all over the world and needs to be defeated. If you were an actual conservative, you would no that."

I am waiting for you to apply the same standards of spelling, and deride him for mis-spelling "know".

Oh, wait! "no" is actually a word, and a spell checker would not catch that, so GGG gets a pass from you, whereas "through" is not a word at all...

Wait, that doesn't work either....

[CharlesWayneCT]

There’s always name-calling on these threads. I could fault every one, but what would be the point?

But when the name is pre-determined, repeated, and used in every thread over the course of time, it ceases to be a “spur-of-the-moment” slur, and turns into a concerted juvenile attack on an entire group of people.

If you want to defend the term “cretin” used as a slur against believers in creation, go ahead, but to me it looks like juvenile name-calling.

[CharlesWayneCT]

And contrary to popular opinion, I really try not to call people “good” or “bad” Christians, as a general rule. If someone makes a specific claim to be a “good Christian” and in the same post manages to do something decidedly unChristian (in my view), I might make an exception, but probably not in a thread that really isn’t about that at all, but has merely been hijacked by those who don’t want to discuss the issue of the thread.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I think the term “derided” is a bit strong for the mild ribbing given.

And I believe someone else already chided GGG for the “no” vs “know” usage.

Nice thing about FR, everybody is really good about finding spelling errors, so you know someone will catch it.

[Rebel_Ace]

FORUM
fo⋅rum  Pronunciation [fawr-uhm, fohr-uhm]
–noun, plural fo⋅rums, fo⋅ra Pronunciation [fawr-uh, fohr-uh]
1. an assembly, meeting place, television program, etc., for the discussion of questions of public interest.

You repeatedly post articles on the same topic from the same sources over and over on this forum yet you are not the SLIGHTEST BIT interested in any discussion that presents even the smallest bit of opposing view points. You are interested only in hearing the sychophantic "AMENS" from your choir. You insult people that engage you with civil discourse ("Pond Scum" is just one I could pick off here) You dismiss solidly grounded arguments as "mindless drivel of those that have sold their very souls to the Temple of Darwin". Your "sources" engage in the very "JUST SO" story playing that you accuse scientists of. When confronted, your arguments are so weak you invariably resort to these lame tactics:

(1) Argument by Authority "This famous guy agrees with me, so I must be right..."

(2) Argument by Senority "I have been here longer than you, so I dismiss your points out of hand..."

(3) Argument by Majority "Most of the population agrees with me, so I must be right..."

You do this repeatedly, and always to the same end.

Other people have suggested that if this is all you wish to pontificate on, and you are clearly intolerant of any alternate view, why not start your OWN forum? If, as you say, and I am quoting here, "(it is the)...Temple of Darwin fanatics that clutter up my threads with your (meaning "their") vile comments..." You can BAN THEM! You needn't ever bother hearing about carbon dating, zirconium dating, fossil strata, astronomical measurements or any other tangible, real world bit of evidence that contradicts your view of the world.

[Rebel_Ace]

"Got you beat by three months Rebel. Now just do as the man says and buzz off."

Clearly you missed the point of my post, so I will state it more plainly. Senority is no basis for dismissing an idea or argument. My point was that GGG has no more authority to tell socialismislost to "buzz off" than I have to tell GGG to "buzz off".

I used his words exactly, and called him a "NEWB", to show him that his basis was flawed. If GGG responded to me that I had no right to tell him to "buzz off" because I was here longer, then he would have to admit that he was just as wrong to tell socialismislost to "buzz off". Faced with such a conundrum, GGG did what he always does, he ignored it, and focused on some other part of the post. That was rather telling.

As I stated earlier, when your arguments are weak these lame tactics are used:

(1) Argument by Authority "This famous guy agrees with me, so I must be right..."

(2) Argument by Senority "I have been here longer than you, so I dismiss your points out of hand..."

(3) Argument by Majority "Most of the population agrees with me, so I must be right..."

Again, so you don't miss it, Number 2 above is the operative case.

[GodGunsGuts]

Hmmm....let's see, you believe that this specimen split off from one of your evo-cretinist ancestors millions of years ago:

And here are some of your more recent Luddite evo-cretinist relatives hard at work:

Which brings us up to the present. Here is a modern evo-cretinist making sure his students learn about both sides of the debate between evolution and intelligent design.

[Fichori]

“You derided socialismislost for his spelling error.” [excerpt]

Actually, I think he spelled it right. (just the wrong word for the sentence)

And I didn't mean to be deriding.

My only intention was to offer a constructive hint.


The fact is, I used to confuse follow and fallow and it drove me nuts every time I forgot. (and the spell checker was no help, and don't get me started on lose, loose, etc)

So, I can appreciate the occasional grammar tip.

Seriously, I was just trying to be helpful. (No need to get your knickers in a knot over it)

[metmom]

And contrary to popular opinion, I really try not to call people “good” or “bad” Christians, as a general rule. If someone makes a specific claim to be a “good Christian” and in the same post manages to do something decidedly unChristian (in my view), I might make an exception, but probably not in a thread that really isn’t about that at all, but has merely been hijacked by those who don’t want to discuss the issue of the thread.

Actually, the only ones who are into labeling others as *good* Christians and *bad* Christians are non-Christians.

I can't tell you the number of times I've heard non-Christians accuse Christians of being *bad* Christians in a bid to manipulate the Christian's behavior. Not because the Christian actually did something unscriptural, but merely because the Christian did something that the non-Christian didn't like for some reason.

And that's all it's about. Somehow the non-Christians think that the Christians will have some kind of meltdown if they think that someone else thinks that they are a *bad* Christian. When a non-Christian labels a Christian as a *bad* Christian, it's virtually always based on some personal preference, not on any actual comparison to Scripture.

The problem is, Christians recognize this tactic and don't fall for it, which frustrates the non-Christians to no end.

And when Christians call the non-Christians on it, it merely earns them (again) the epithet of *bad Christian*.

And so it goes.....

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Fichori]

“The caveat to taking the Bible literally is that it has been tranlated several times,” [excerpt]

Sometimes its best to look at the original Greek/Hebrew and try to figure out what the author really meant.

“...and I won't even comment on the latest "gender-free" abomination, lest I get zapped for the use of profanity.” [excerpt]

Abomination.

Good word for it.

[Rebel_Ace]

GGG wrote:

"Mr. Socialist is trying to play the victim. Our little spat didn’t come out of nowhere. The newb began insulting me from the first time he ever replied to one of my threads. Here’s an example..."

So I chased down GGG's example from the very link he posted, and I found the post from socialismislost. I quote it here completely for all to read:

"no it can not. There is no such thing as a historical science. There is history describing science. Archeology can never be used to understand Alexandar the Great in a historical sense, and the same argument for the other sciences you have listed. Paleontology can never reconstruct the physical past as dinosaurs existed millions of years ago. You are purposefully defining history with science. If your argument was correct, paleontology would be able to reconstruct a physical dinosaur with the same conditions that it existed millions of years ago. History describes the past. Science explains it. You continue post after post to equate the two words."

Where are the INSULTS? Where are the PERSONAL ATTACKS? Where is the inappropriate language? This reads to me like a DIFFERENCE OF OPINION REGARDING NOMANCLATURE.

You'll need to grow a thicker skin, if this is the best example you can cite for insulting posts...

[Kozak]

Actually it's more like this....

[metmom]

(1) Argument by Authority “This famous guy agrees with me, so I must be right...”

(2) Argument by Senority “I have been here longer than you, so I dismiss your points out of hand...”

(3) Argument by Majority “Most of the population agrees with me, so I must be right...”

****************************************************************
Odd, those are exactly the same arguments that the evos use to support the ToE. I’ve actually had evos tell me that even though they don’t have a science degree, they know they’re right because some other evolutionist told them that they were right.

Not to mention the *Well millions of adherents of the Catholic and mainline Protestant churches agree with me so.....” argument that has been recently presented on this forum in support of evolution.