Boy I can be stupid ;-)

Let me re-phrase.

A lot of YOUR "bigger and better" notions are YOUR creation. This is getting tedious but yes, I am an arrogant ass. I have not disputed it.

But to get a simple point across. A lot of YOUR opinion is generalized and entirely your creation.



KUDOS!!! That was an excellent turnabout.

You didn't say it, but you implied it. Implied it quite clearly. I made no implication that george is obnoxious, he is a perfect gentleman. You DID imply that I'd abuse my power and vaporize you.

But an excellent rhetorical reply.



This one would work better under other circumstances but it falls flat, IMO here. The reasons it does so is because you had a brainfart of your own with circular logic and arguments that contradict each other.

When you try to say you don't need to rebutt, it's pretty obvious you abandoned your own arguments and decided to focus on my perceived "nastyness".

It would have been much better to make a half hearted rebuttal and then take on my "nastiness". See that way there would be less focus on the stupidity of conflicting arguments and the poor attempt to divert attention.

It's really very easy, just nuance your conflicting arguments a bit. Re-write a few, and THEN point your finger. That way it's not as obvious that you are backpedaling. :-)

But nice job on the first one.

More patronizing tips:

Those who lend themselves well to patronizing fulfill their order. Those who patronize others should have a defense.
If you are going to hurl stones don't pick up wads of tissue.

In short. If you want to take issue with me stick to the valid ones, it's not difficult as there are many. When you find yourself spouting bull retract it.

Come on, you can do better.

PS, last time we did this you regretted letting me "goad" you. Then don't let me do it again! I am goading you right now! The sheer nastiness! Oh the humanity.

More tips PDiddie,

You should call me on how I keep patronizing you and giving you tips.

Then you should look up irony and smack me upside my head.

Then you should do a victory dance.

I'm partial to spiking the ball and doing that twirl thing but I dunno if you'll get carpet burn...


Come on PDiddie! Help me stop!

I don't wish to stoop to the subterranean level to which you appear to have sunk.

I'm glad you're having fun, though. I think that's clearly indicative of what so many find so offensive about you.

Creator, moderator, ridiculer.

Verrrry ugly.

(Tell me again how to get in touch with the vaporized to verify your claim?)

Have you considered implementing some kind of test upon A2K 2.0 rollout that will keep out those of us not up to your standards?

It will be pretty lonely there with just you to play with.

Lonely, but then we all play with ourselves now and then, eh?

See now PDiddie,

It's easier to point fingers at nastiness without being nasty yourself.

See, the real funny thing is that you came in here to deride my "meaness" and then say I have sunk to a subterranean level (??), make false accusations about my use of the owndership of the site, call me ugly (just ask the goats!), offensive....

And the worst part is you are incapable on understanding irony.

Again, look it up.

Then you make a totally insipid request:



Really, insipid requests that are obvious are a draw back. If I said that there have been no "vaporized" people who flamed me then how the hell am I supposed to put you in contact with them.

Let me demonstrate the stupidity of this argument:

"I believe god doesn't exist"

"Yeah right, provbe it! Put me in contact with god!"

PDiddie,

Nice to ask about A2K 2.0

Yes I do have ways to keep out those who don't keep the standard. It's called banning . Thing is, we let you stay. Out standards are .. (watch for the irony!) subterranean !!!

Ahh I kill myself.

I'll leave dumb predictions about loneliness. Get a grip on reality bud, you ahve great points with the line of arrogant, obnoxious etc.

You slip up when you add the dumb ones.

I'm playing with myself right now... :wink:

I love to criticize Craven every opportunity I get............

Unfortunately, I can't think of anything right now........

Wow!

Yes Frank; I guess max can't read!

Why that's exactly what I was thinking when you said:



I guess there's hope for me yet...

This has been amusing, but I really must go.

BoGoWo: Despite your protestations to the contrary, not only can I read, but I can do it with comprehension.

Perhaps you are not similarly inclined?

PDiddie,

Ask around, remember, I'm an ass so you know quite a few people who have been angry enough to flame me.

I'd give you pointers but let's try asking.

Does anyone here know of anyone who was angry enough at me to flame me?

Now PDiddie, think about something for a while. I opened a thread about logic that I found to be silly. You came here to question my character.

You have said many negative things about me here, a lot I agree with. Things liek being arrogant etc.

Then you proceed to make false accusations about me and press the issue.

I have thus far only poked fun at your incredibly contradictory arguments.

Would you say you were mean spirtited here?

In my responses to you I am more than willing to concede a meaness. You came here to unearth past gripes you ahve with me and try to use my mocking of some shoddy logic as the reason.

I don't mind the part about being arrogant, an ass or other such faults I have but they aren't enough for you. You came here to call me an ass but since I admit to it you need more.

So you bring out the false accusations that you'll be vaporized and that I'll abuse my ownership of teh site.

I pick at your arguments because they are obvious attempts to get under my skin (since the calling me arrogant ass part I did for you). Furthermore you use some horrific arguments taht contradict each other.

I took a perverse pleasure in throwing them back and patronizing you.

But the real irony is how willing you are to question someone's character.

I disagreed with george's logic, it was hillarious.

You have a bone to pick with me.

How are you any better for coming here to make the case that I am an arrogant ass (which I admit to) and pressing accusations that you know are false just because I didn't become angry about the arrogant bit?

Really now, I mention duplicity and irony several times.

You came here to call me mean, but then where did you go? Please use a little introspection, I am just now questioning your character. I had kept it to making fun of your fallacious logic.

So, again, I made fun of George's logic let's just agree taht it was a horrible and mean thing to do.

What did you do?

Duplicity abounds, use the standards you seek to impose on me on yourself.

I took issue with George's posts and said something, when you take issue with my doing so by questioning characher you are doing the same and then later worse.

Let me know if you want to play again.

Damn max that was sooooooooooo .... mean!

[wondering] Max changed his avatar because my avatar said to... I wonder what would happen if I made an avatar saying "use an avatar of a pink donkey" ...[/wondering]

You're right max;
I can only read standing up!

does that mean you are not catholic?

All of this talk is making me want to disagree with Craven.

Your example of the flaw in george's logic would be entirely true if he was actually trying to prove that the moon is made of blue cheese, or that the tooth fairy exists. But he's not. And he's not even trying to prove that God exists. He is speaking of something entirely different, faith as a transformative and valuable thing in and of itself. This is outside of logic, by definition. Logical flaws are quite beside the point. The beauty of it is that lacking proof, lacking logic, some people have faith, and take great comfort in that faith.

I don't, and never have. But that doesn't mean I haven't seen the balm that faith has offered people I know. I know people who are very, very sad for me, not so much for the fact that I don't believe in God, per se, but that I don't have that space in my mind to go to, that illogical, irrational, but pure and calming space that they call faith.

And maybe I have it, just not in terms of god; I have faith that my daughter and husband will always love me, for example. There are many reasons to think that, but ultimately, it comes down to faith. And I would be an unhappier person if I didn't believe that, or questioned it too closely or too frequently.

Jeez maybe you oughta ask snood.

soz,

I didn't bring up religion with George. Initially he was using religion to defend the war in Iraq. I mentioned that I was atheist and he implied that it was an increasingly indefensible position and that if I were to study science I'd agree. His challenge to atheism I ignored at the time because it would have taken the thread off topic, but he'd clearly intimated that my atheism is being supported less and less by science. Not by his emotions or his desires.

And yes he WAS making a case for the existence of a god. Not trying to prove it because that would be folly but the whole post was his case for god's existence being a better decision than one of atheism.

Frank had said he prefers not taking the leap of faith and George claimed it was prefferable.

He went on to say that because some physicists believed in a god that "this illustrates the difficulty of the assertion that a creator or designer certainly does not exist" and "I do believe it tips the balance away from the affirmation that no god exists".

I'll leave my other qualms for now. But the disagreement is mutual.

Not to worry, Snoodie, I'm certain it was all meant in fun ... .

I don't think you know Frank Apisa like I think I know Frank Apisa.