|
Post by dietspam16 on Sept 10, 2005 0:42:34 GMT -5
Now we all need to dress as pirates to do our part in the fight against GW
|
|
|
Post by Evilduck on Sept 10, 2005 1:37:23 GMT -5
Now now, to err is human, to forgive is divine. I know I talked badly about the church, but it does have a purpouse.
Also, we cant just 'dress' as pirates. We need to BE pirates. I suggest we all dress up as pirates, build a wooden platform with wheels and a sail, then 'sail' around town talking and acting as pirates and scaring random ppl.
|
|
|
Post by Random on Sept 10, 2005 1:38:03 GMT -5
urban sailing! thats awesome! i'm going to try that some time
|
|
|
Post by Evilduck on Sept 10, 2005 1:39:00 GMT -5
My point exactly. Now all we need is lumber and someone who knows how to build things out of it.
|
|
|
Post by Random on Sept 10, 2005 1:44:20 GMT -5
alex knows what hes doing and i'm not so bad with that sort of thing, the question is what will the cops do to us?
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Sept 10, 2005 1:47:01 GMT -5
anyway, we're drifting off subject...I'm proud to say i've been touched by his noodely appendage...have you? btw alexei, does the church really need to fcuk up more than once to be held responsible? "don't arrest me! i only killed one guy! c'mon!" Okay: 1. Extremists and extremist sects rarely, if ever, represent their respective ideologies. "Once," therefore, is far from conclusive. 2. Your statement relies on the assumption that there is only one Christian church, which is simply not true. Protestantism, Catholicism, and Orthodoxy, as well as their respective churches, all have different regulations and histories, and shouldn't be viewed - or judged! - as a single unit.
|
|
|
Post by dietspam16 on Sept 10, 2005 16:53:38 GMT -5
and almost all of fcuked up in their own way, quakers and shakers excluded
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Sept 10, 2005 17:22:07 GMT -5
Oh, STFU.
|
|
|
Post by Random on Sept 10, 2005 17:23:10 GMT -5
nice argument. . .
very compelling
up until now this was a debate :\
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Sept 10, 2005 17:31:55 GMT -5
"and almost all of fcuked up in their own way, quakers and shakers excluded" is a biased, unresearched, and very personal statement, and I refuse to argue against it.
|
|
|
Post by Random on Sept 10, 2005 17:33:26 GMT -5
so instead of saying that and giving your reasons and backup you fling mud?
you're reminding me of me, and you're usually better than that
additionally, where to draw the line between screw ups and close calls is an opinion
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Sept 10, 2005 17:37:10 GMT -5
JP, I already gave you my evidence, and Alex blatantly refused to hear it. His arguement was nothing more than a last-ditch attempt to push his point: disprovable, arrogant, and lacking in content.
What the hell am I supposed to say? "No they're not, and here are my reasons?" Where are his reasons? Why should I waste my energy on arguing something that my opponent obviously doesn't want to comprehend?
|
|
|
Post by Random on Sept 10, 2005 17:40:07 GMT -5
i read no reasons from you about each group not making a mistake that alex accused them of because alex never really accused them of something specific, i read an argument saying that alex made an unfair generalization, which is somewhat true
as for what the hell you're supposed to say?
"that lacked any backup whatsoever, please either backup your points or back down."
"i don't believe that that is true, what facts do you have to back that up? everything i've heard and read says the contrary."
etc. . .
and as far as wasting energy goes, why post and flame then, it results in spending more energy senselessly than responding to an argument that isn't backed up when it is given
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Sept 10, 2005 17:41:48 GMT -5
STFU, in my humble opinion, conveys this message perfectly. But fine.
Hem! That lacked any backup whatsoever, so please either backup your points or back down.
|
|
|
Post by Random on Sept 10, 2005 17:43:00 GMT -5
see? no flaming and you've gotten your point across adequately, good times
|
|