|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 06/15/2004 : 10:58:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
quote:
Perhaps you could use some professional counseling.
Thanks man I don't need Professional Political Correctness Counseling!
Been there done that years ago! With the first one, it amounted to the professianl telling me to get in touch with my feminie side, while the women needs to be my roles, assertive, aggressive, strong, independent. Blah Blah...Look at Canada and look at feminized Europe, that is what is coming to a home NEAR you!
And they suggested this concerning trust issues....why?
As for how my first marriage ended, I already mentioned how it ended. Perhaps you could try reading the entire post instead of heaping ad hominem upon ad hominem.
As for my handle. I've already discussed this at length. That you believe it is "gay" is completely irrelevant. I was going to name an acohol funny car that name, but never got one. So in 1986, I took it as my online handle when I first started posting to a bunch of USENET discussion boards.
Your "Metrosexual" crack is duely noted and discarded. You make a lot of assumptions based on your own hurt feelings and inner rage. Almost a need to demonize your opponent since you have no evidence to back up your claims. (This thread was specifically opened to give you a place to defend your assertions, not question the sexuality, masculinity, or mental processes of members.) Perhaps anger management or professional help as it pertains to trust issues might help you. I make this suggestion based on your posting style of attacking the person and not the concept. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
 |
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2004 : 11:10:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
quote:
Perhaps you could use some professional counseling.
Thanks man I don't need Professional Political Correctness Counseling!
Been there done that years ago! With the first one, it amounted to the professianl telling me to get in touch with my feminie side, while the women needs to be my roles, assertive, aggressive, strong, independent. Blah Blah...Look at Canada and look at feminized Europe, that is what is coming to a home NEAR you!
Hmmm, I kinda love Europe. But being a salsa dancer, I'm probably according to Verlch also very much in touch with my feminine side (oh, I'm soooooo metrosexual).
Verlch, if you cannot back up your claim but instead are even launching personal attacks against people on the board, just bugger of will ya? How do you think this gets you anywhere? |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2004 : 11:28:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
. . . Look at Canada and look at feminized Europe, that is what is coming to a home NEAR you!
So I still haven't figured out if verlch is a fifteen-year old kid playing troll, or actually who he says he is. Either way, he's proven one thing: it is possible to write less coherently than the posts he made in the earlier thread.
Anyhow, verlch, I wonder: have you ever even been to Europe? Or even Canada? Or let me guess: because the right-wing media and conservative/fundamentalist Christian leaders bash France at every last opportunity, you simply assume that it's got to be socialist and feminized just like they say. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2004 : 12:15:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Chaloobi wrote:quote:
EDIT: Dave, this thread is getting sloppy. I thought you were going to strictly moderate it. Please feel free to delete this post as part of your moderation. I promise I won't call you a Nazi.
Yeah, I thought so, too, but verlch apparently feels more like flinging all-caps crap around. The intent of the moderation was to keep things on-track in order to help verlch get his assertions supported (by being able to simply delete antagonistic replies), but verlch would rather shout "censorship" than take advantage of the opportunity afforded him. Just goes to show that some people won't be satisfied even when the playing field is tilted in their favor.
I'm chalking it up as another "learning experience," at least until verlch himself tells me that he's ready to get serious, in which case I can tidy up this thread, or start yet another one.
At the risk of being told to mind my own business, I suggest that you create a companion thread to this one. The companion thread will contain whatever fluff you remove from this thread for tidyness reasons. Thus nothing is deleted, nothing censored, and the thread stays clean.
I only suggest this because I like the concept of this thread, have participated in a hundred discussions where such a concept was sorely needed, and I hate to see yet another lightning rod planted in the ground by Verlch that all these good skeptics can't help but strike at with nothing ever actually achieved. I suspect Verlch is having good fun with this. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2004 : 13:20:29 [Permalink]
|
I won't tell you to mind your own business, Chaloobi, but I will say that your suggestion would be a big pain. Moving entire threads from one folder to another is a snap with this software, but moving individual posts, or pieces of posts, isn't supported at all. It would look like I was making all the posts, except I would add "originally posted by whomever" to the start of each one. Big, big pain, and ugly to boot.
Besides which, if the people here decided to tackle verlch's assertions again (as they did at the start of the thread), they could easily just ignore his additions, and much the same result would be accomplished. I mean, we're doing this for the benefit of verlch and whomever other lurkers might be reading, and secondarily for exercizing our own brains. Verlch, however, has chosen to reject that premise, on numerous grounds (it appears), which removes quite a bit of the motivation for keeping this thread as neat and tidy as I would have had he decided otherwise.
And it's not like he hasn't had tons of opportunity to do so. Instead, he seems to be taking every chance he gets to spit on the idea of having a rational discussion. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2004 : 13:40:31 [Permalink]
|
Can I stop making nice now?
Thank you.
Verlch, from the beginning you have been a distuptive influence. You have yet to come up with an addition to the conversation that was above the level of semi-gibberish. I find it hard to believe that someone intelligent enough to use a computer cannot form cognitive thoughts well enough that they are easily descernable. I find it hard to believe that someone intelligent enough to use a computer has a thought process so disordered that he/she cannot fathom the writings of others. I think that this reflects, not so much stupidity, as a basic selfishness that all but controls your life.
I find you filled with bias, all of it asinine.
Most here, including myself, have worked diligently to try and inform you upon a varity of subjects and you have now begun to return that diligence with insults. And worst of all, they are not very interesting insults. Surely, someone intelligent enough to use a computer can do a lot better.
To me, you have become a figure of fun. You are a toy to be batted about as a cat worries a cockroach. So carry on, old sport. I'm enjoying it.
Or, you might change your brand and/or type of intoxicant, get your addled head together, and try to maintain a civilized conversation. Either way, do stick around.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2004 : 14:19:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
if the people here decided to tackle verlch's assertions again (as they did at the start of the thread), they could easily just ignore his additions,
I'd agree with you Dave, but it seems that V is not interested in anything except insults and deliberately inflamatory posts. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2004 : 19:17:18 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote:quote:
I'd agree with you Dave, but it seems that V is not interested in anything except insults and deliberately inflamatory posts.
Indeed: "Instead, he seems to be taking every chance he gets to spit on the idea of having a rational discussion."  |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2004 : 01:30:18 [Permalink]
|
Your "Metrosexual" crack is duely noted and discarded. You make a lot of assumptions based on your own hurt feelings and inner rage. quote:
You almost make me want to cry in my glass of water!!! And switch it to beer!!! |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2004 : 01:36:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Verlch, from the beginning you have been a distuptive influence. You have yet to come up with an addition to the conversation that was above the level of semi-gibberish. I find it hard to believe that someone intelligent enough to use a computer cannot form cognitive thoughts well enough that they are easily descernable. I find it hard to believe that someone intelligent enough to use a computer has a thought process so disordered that he/she cannot fathom the writings of others. I think that this reflects, not so much stupidity, as a basic selfishness that all but controls your life.
Well pass me some Ritilan!! I could use it, I'm very hyper. And so was Mozart. I choose not to pump myself up on man made chemicals, I like myself exactly the way God made me. I have enough cognitive thoughts to run a business and a computer, doesn't mean much, just the fact I decided I didn't need to have some jack ass looking over my shoulder all day. With that said I also don't trust many of man's other intentions as pertained to the existance of this world and man. So how is favoring my opionion over yours disrupting this chat room. It's not. Unless this is Lenny Flank, one sided, anti-bible quoting chat site, than I am doing nothing wrong. I defend myself and my maker. I stand for something bigger than myself. |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2004 : 03:53:01 [Permalink]
|
Difference be's that Mozart had talent.
I wonder if you do indeed run a business. If so and you deal with your customers as dishonestly as you do with us, you won't be in business long.
quote:
So how is favoring my opionion over yours disrupting this chat room.
It is very simple, verlch. All you have done, aside from a multitude snide remarks, is put forth opinions. You have put forth opinions and regarded them as holy writ without a single shred of support. Do you expect us to accept a mere opinion? If so, you need more than Ritilan; you need a cluebat.
Oh wait, you did quote AiG or ICR, or sombody a while back. I'll mention that to be fair. I'll also mention that I and others can Shake & Bake(tm) those turkies, too.
Verlch, your opinion means jack-shit. My opinion means jack-shit. Dave W.'s opinion means slightly more than jack-shit, but he's admin and the rank hath their priveliges  . Dave also knows that that an unsupported opinion will get him called as quickly it will you. Or me. Or anyone else on these boards.
I quote myself: quote:
The man just ain't studyin'.
When are you going to start studyin', verlch? When are you going to stop 'running your mouth with your brain out of gear'? When will you finally know what you're talking about before you again make a fool of yourself?
Now, I don't give a fly-blown rat's ass about your or anyone else's faith, or lack thereof. In this great country, you can roll on the floor (never figured out why anyone'd want to do that) speak in tongues (I suspect: spout gibberish to impress the neighboring pews), handle snakes (we lost another one of these up VA way a little while back), or almost anything else that doesn't require blood sacrifice. What I am interested in is empirical evidence to support statements, and that means anybody's statments.
You wanna be a Christian missionary amongst the heathen skeptics? Fine. I'm all for it. But you're gonna have to become far more accomplished and knowledgable than you currently are. You will also have to learn to read and write.
When are you going to start studying, verlch?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2004 : 06:52:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
quote:
Verlch, from the beginning you have been a distuptive influence. You have yet to come up with an addition to the conversation that was above the level of semi-gibberish. I find it hard to believe that someone intelligent enough to use a computer cannot form cognitive thoughts well enough that they are easily descernable. I find it hard to believe that someone intelligent enough to use a computer has a thought process so disordered that he/she cannot fathom the writings of others. I think that this reflects, not so much stupidity, as a basic selfishness that all but controls your life.
Well pass me some Ritilan!! I could use it, I'm very hyper. And so was Mozart. I choose not to pump myself up on man made chemicals, I like myself exactly the way God made me. I have enough cognitive thoughts to run a business and a computer, doesn't mean much, just the fact I decided I didn't need to have some jack ass looking over my shoulder all day. With that said I also don't trust many of man's other intentions as pertained to the existance of this world and man. So how is favoring my opionion over yours disrupting this chat room. It's not. Unless this is Lenny Flank, one sided, anti-bible quoting chat site, than I am doing nothing wrong. I defend myself and my maker. I stand for something bigger than myself.
For every assertion, you are required to provide proof.
Let me make this abundantly clear. We are not interested in attacking religion in general or the text of the Bible. But, if you quote a source, any source, out of context, we will bring it to your attention. You have been strong on assertations on falsifiable subjects but very weak on sources. We are likewise uninterested on attacking your alledged diety. But when a person claims that they can prove the existance of such a supreme being, then they must provide that evidence.
We are uninterested in insulting you. I have made observations and urged you to get help. You have responded with little more than petulant namecalling. I'll admit, you pissed me off. But that tends to happen when people I am attempting to engage in debate duck and weave the issues put forth and instead engage in ad hominem arguementation. This kind of arguementation provides exactly zero proof and only serves to inflame passions.
Now then.
There is no fucking way that some guy bred billions of generations of fruit flies, period. It is physically impossible given the life cycle of the fruit fly.
Women as subserviant to men was a societal norm 2000 years ago. It is no longer. The possible combinations of power sharing in families have three outcomes, not two. They are women subserviant, men subserviant, and men and women coming to a concensus (equal power).
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2004 : 10:22:50 [Permalink]
|
verlch wrote:quote:
So how is favoring my opionion over yours disrupting this chat room. It's not. Unless this is Lenny Flank, one sided, anti-bible quoting chat site, than I am doing nothing wrong.
Funny thing: all I hear you saying, verlch, is, "Dave! Dave! Please read me the proverbial Riot Act." So I will.
[Official Moderator Warning follows:]
The mission statement of the Skeptic Friends Network reads as follows:The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise. (It's on every page, in case you're wondering.)
In short, the intent of the SFN is to promote critical thinking. The intent of these forums (with a few exceptions) is to discuss things relevant to our goals. And the intent of this particular folder (not excepted as above) is to discuss issues relavant to the Creation/Evolution controversy with an eye towards applying critical thought to assertions made here and elsewhere.
You, verlch, have made very little attempt to discuss your opinions, and instead most often just make more and more of your opinions known. For one example, you tell us that men are superior to women because the Bible says so, but refuse to engage in a discussion of why you think the Bible is a reliable guide to such matters. Such an assumption is not axiomatic to many of us, but could become so if you would present a serious, cogent, and logically valid argument. You have not, and are therefore wasting both our time and yours.
As far as the "disruption" goes: if you come to a web discussion forum which has a plainly-stated mission, without intending to discuss much of anything, it is rude. It is no less rude than a person walking into a church during services, sitting down in the aisle, and doing yoga. The yoga itself isn't hurting anyone (it's not even preventing people from seeing or hearing the preacher), but it doesn't mesh with the intent of the other people who are there, thus becoming an annoying distraction.
We, the members and staff of the Skeptic Friends Network, have a purpose to accomplish here. If you choose not to engage with that purpose, either pro or con, then you bring little to this site and its membership but a waste of server space.
If you think the Skeptic Friends Network should be run a different way, and/or with a different goal, I suggest you either tell us, or go start your own web forum for which you can write your own mission statement and rules. Or, on the other hand, you can choose to engage in a discussion of the many points you have brought up.
If your intention is to do nothing more than you have been doing, which is rude and unproductive, I will feel little guilt in showing you the exit. Any further whining about censorship, hypocritically sneering about "debates" or insulting the other participants here will only get you booted that much faster.
[To others here: please refrain from posting to this thread until verlch replies or I post again, thanks.] |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2004 : 11:10:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I wonder if you do indeed run a business. If so and you deal with your customers as dishonestly as you do with us, you won't be in business long.
I don't steal or lie to them, what more can you ask for. I do what I say I'm going to do!!!
|
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2004 : 11:13:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It is very simple, verlch. All you have done, aside from a multitude snide remarks, is put forth opinions. You have put forth opinions and regarded them as holy writ without a single shred of support. Do you expect us to accept a mere opinion? If so, you need more than Ritilan; you need a cluebat.
Where is your proof, other than the fact you have 10% of the population believing in Evolution! How does some speaker writting an essay on why the chicken came before the egg, make evolution some kindof fact. Therefore making me a dishonest liar to 10% of the population like you.
|
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
