Re: The Devil On JOA!?

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 12:37:40 -0400, kstahl <ktsahl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>EGK wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 11:27:43 -0400, kstahl <ktsahl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>Why don't you discuss the real issues that I brought up in the first 
>>>place rather then just knocking the presentation? I am fairly certain
it 
>>>is because you realized very quickly that you can't even begin to
handle 
>>>the subject based on your own studies or else you would have attacked 
>>>the message rather then the messenger. And you wouldn't have needed to 
>>>use profanity and vulgarity along the way. Something I still haven't
had 
>>>to resort to.
>>>
>>>Or do you just prefer name-calling because you don't possess sufficient

>>>intellectual capability to deal with the issue itself? I'm guessing
that 
>>>your lambast answer will be sufficient to let everyone else know your 
>>>choice since you really don't have a choice at all. You can only go
with 
>>>what you know - apparently.
>> 
>> 
>> You're just another class-a hypocrite.  Why should anyone bother with
you
>> other then to hurl back the same narrow minded "presentation" as you
call it
>> that you spew?  Tell me how your choice of words like "narrow minded
>> individuals" or "act like a man and admit it" is a search for
intellectual
>> honesty and not simply a personal attack?  Oh, yeah, I know, because
you
>> think you're righteous.
>> 
>> Like I said, you really need to look in the mirror.  Without the
blinders
>> this time.  You're just another hater.  Part of the problem not part of
any
>> solution.
>
>And you still can't talk about the real issue?

Why should I argue a point I don't agree with?  I don't have any interest
in
organized religion.  I've already told you I was an agnostic.  You're
wrapped up in hate that you stupidly group all Republicans as right-wing
religious fanatics
The issue I raised was that you are just as strident, arrogant and bigoted
as those you rant about.

> Every post you make that 
>isn't about the real issue is an admission that you simply don't have 
>any information to refute the assertions that I had made originally. Not 
>that there are any refutations, but at least you could try. If you don't 
>want to be regarded as narrow minded or cowardly, why not do something 
>about it and show that you've at least tried to tackle the subject 
>intellectually. All you are accompli****ng so far is a display or 
>righteous indignation that your feelings are hurt and you can't fight 
>back because you simply don't know enough to deal with the issues.
>
>Religions are a farce. Religious nutters propagate things that they 
>don't even understand and have effectively usurped the place of god 
>because god won't act on their behalf. To me it is essentially 
>mumbo-jumbo that has little meaning apart from being a social club.

You're the one who tossed out the choice personal attacks before I ever
entered the thread.  Now you try and act like you're swathed in
"intellectualism".  How is one supposed to engage in any type of
intellectual debate when you toss how **** like "act like a man"?   You're
just as narrow minded a bigot and your own words which  I repeated back to
you prove how full of hate you are.    You can't even defend them and
instead say I'm attacking the "presentation".  I couldn't care less about
religion and have my own negative opinions of it.  I still sup****t
people's
right to faith and to believe whatever they wish.  

The only time I have a problem is when people try to tell me how I should
think.  That's the same whether they're right-wing religious fanatics or
left wing imbeciles.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"There would be a lot more civility in this world if people
 didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you"
                   - (Calvin and Hobbes)