Posted on 12/13/2009 5:28:58 AM PST by freedomyes
you seem to be reading a lot of his material. why?
please, his name with article brings you such angst.
when you see that name henceforth, please skip his post and use your time more wisely.
the author wants everyone to be happy, not depressed.
thank you.
merry christmas.
yes
merry christmas
Bupe looks like a better alternative but methadone is big money.
Why post here each & every thing J. Grant Swank publishes on the web?
Oh, while I'm at it, why post this particular thread in "Religion" at all?
Most all the "Swank" stuff which you've been bringing here non-stop, should be in "bloggers & personal", for he is an opinion writer, touching upon many subjects. It does appear that putting all of in "religion" on FR, is rather gaming the system, particularly when coupled with the sort of reply you gave me, such as;
when you see that name henceforth, please skip his post and use your time more wisely.
Such most certainly does not even begin to answer the questions put to you, while handing out a sort of passive-aggressive stiff-arm, at the same time. Thanks for nothing.
Please post further Swank material more properly where it belongs...either in "bloggers & personal", or to borrow your own phrasing, maybe you yourself could "use your time more wisely" and don't post it here at all?
Quit hiding the Swank-spam in "religion", at the very least. This latest most certainly doesn't belong in that category.
if the subject has to do with a religion or killing cult such as islam, it is appropriate to post it in ‘religion.’
‘religion’ covers religions or religious cults. it is that logical.
one more time:
logic would conclude that if the author’s posts annoy you, skip his name and posts.
others probably do.
those who do not do that then obviously want to read his posts. and they do read his posts.
so let freedom of choice reign on fr and elsewhere in our democracy.
did you read the post on heroin?
if you did, you would have realized that its main point is GOD. it is not heroin or a methadone clinic. it is GOD in redemption and prayer and faith.
spiritual themes are throughout that post.
read it again before concluding that it has nothing to do with religion and therefore should never have been posted under ‘religion.’
that in fact is exactly where it should have been posted—and so was posted there.
Even then, it is one man's, one blogger's "opinion", and would be better placed in a "blogger" category. Look at the link again. What is it called? from "blogtownhall" which is a subset of "Townhall".
Meanwhile, you still have not answered a single question.
What's up with that?
When will you answer? Ever?
Doesn't matter. Swank is a blogger. Put his stuff where it belongs.
Many have religious views, are informed by such, etc. It does no follow that all of which one opines about belongs in the religion forum of FR, even if they use religious language or symbolism.
merry christmas and a happy new year.
but to get serious once again, the author has so many pressing items on his agenda that he does not take time out to answer questions such as you ask for he believes they are irrelevant.
he prefers to keep his time for getting out articles dealing with important matters, his expansive readership over half a century proving his conclusion to be valid.
after you have spent half a century writing books and thousands of articles in journals, magazines, newspapers and so forth, he will hopefully take out a wee bit of time to scan your questions.
in the meantime, merry christmas and a happy new year. he wishes you well, sincerely so.
Another non-sequitur. Ok, I'm letting it.
Are you implying I somehow am not? What? For asking questions? For having an objection?
What about me? Do I get some of this "freedom" you are talking about? Or is more like you are trying to tell me to shut up? Huh?
Freedom for thee, but not for me? Got it. You are coming through loud and clear...
Here it appears that you are speaking for, or on the behalf of the author, as every other statement you made in this particular reply has also.
So again; Are you yourself J. Grant Swank? A simple yes or no will suffice. I guess not since you go on to say;
No, I suppose that you do not mean to say that I myself must spend "half a century writing books and thousands of articles in journals, magazines, newspapers and so forth..." before the mighty Swank will "scan" my questions, as you put it.
But I didn't ask Swank for any such "scan", now did I?
Since it seems we have established that you yourself are not him, I think it is safe to say I have not asked of him one single question, at all!
Which logically can lead us back to one of my original questions, posed to you;
Are you one of his assistants? Let me expand upon that, since you so clearly seem to be speaking for him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.