Attitude to Gratitude

Jip can we please get him banned? Call it an early xmas present*


*( I laugh at the notion of god but still like to receive presents on the 25th of december, but this ****wit thinks it makes me give a **** about jesus )

 

TFWNN is either one of two things.

One of Not606's greatest WUM's or one of the thickest ****s ever to be born.

 

He only pretends to be a WUM when he's made a complete **** of himself. No one is that much of a WUM that they would scour the internet looking for sites to provide data to back up his absurd claims about the holocaust, climate change etc.

 

Welcome to GC.

 

cop out? I think you need to look up the meaning of 'cop out'

It doesnt need to be 'insulting' for you to portray it thus was the point.

you keep going on about a 9 year old lass, thought it was your you were referring to

The difference is that you make, on average, one typo and one other error per paragraph. At least. I've made a couple on the whole thread.
but I've never boasted about having an english degree.
Common consensus is a better gauge than many others. In the civiised world, we elect governments based on it.
you elect governments based on an internet chat forum and you think that is civilised. You should do what Islam taught 1400 years ago

You need to include yourself in that list too, now read the names again and tell me you are proud to be in that crew
Unlike you I didnt join to please my pier and get acceptance. which seems to be what you are doing as proved by this point

One or two here and there is not "beel". Almost unreadable passages, as we often see from you on here, IS "beel".
I would say that on my part is consistency, I even spell the title of OPs incorrectly and I am starting them. I think beel would be better suited to someone who did something out of character. Yup that you, especially as you are so careful
its so unlike you

having kids makes you a *****?

But biased history books all the same.
funny thing that. History is usually written by the winners and as such biased, yet I have quoted from 'both sides' as it were and they seem to agree

The rights bit? Those rights that actually aren't honoured in most Muslim-dominated countries? What's the problem then? Can nobody in power actually read the Quran?
Th eproblem is that the governments are not muslim. Been through this before. In a nutshell there is NO muslim country today. its in the constitutions.
As for muslim dominated countries, I think you would agree that Britain is not one yet inequality is huge. look at pay scales etc. also I think the definition of equality may be different for us. eg (to use a concept you may be familiar with) a woman drinking beer in a pint glass isnt necessarily 'equal'


What's happened is that you've ****ed up again. But unlike you, I'm not going to constantly use one ****-up as a flimsy stick to beat you with.
by all means do, still doesnt explain why that sentence ended up there instead of adter the point it was meant for

Thought she was Irish? Are you saying that before she converted she was a slag?
Yeah, but muslim, you do know muslim isnt colour orientated? . There you go with the insult again, I will refrain from saying anything against your wife, and not because you will cry to mick
Show some sources then. You seem to think I should. No "googling or wikking" (sic) though
No probs, off the top of my head read the book by Thomas Carlysle, and there is a book called 100 greatest lives (i think its lives) cant remember the author, have the book actually

No one makes more references to "owning" and winning than you Fan. And yet you label me as the internet warrior. I believe psychologists call it "projection".
oh ok, projection you say? you should see someone about that, or is that how you learned about it? I only ask as I respond in kind (as mentioned previously) and these are the type of phrases I got of you.

I may have used these "stock" phrases once each on this thread. Do you not know what "stock phrase" means?
well thats not true, however I will leave you to do the counting, all I am saying is that you start a discussion, make a point, the point gets countered and then you 'dont care' etc etc. Of course being the English expert you are welcome to give me a definition for 'stock phrase'

Not according to another source though, eh?
according to some sources the world was going to end in 2000, whats your point?

so you would shift the boundaries to suit? its what I have been saying, thanks for clarifying
We didnt shake hands, I dont with strange women. Also you are really a contradition you didnt even believe I went at one point so to say you would have believed that is a lie
Yeah, the huge pile that has one example of each on this thread. Pile implies several items on top of one another. This doesn't qualify I'm afraid.
pile also means a quantity of things thrown together. And its getting bigger

I think one typo per thousand word comment isn't that bad going. It's about a hundred times better than you.
my spelling and grammar is rubbish, I recognise its on internet forum. YOU have the problem with it so should be more careful

The last time she went on a night out was about 2 and a half years ago, so "not really". And what does the "old 'mates house' huh" mean?
without you and dolled up? which was the point
the mates house bit is self explanatory if you follow the conversation

Very droll. Why do you find it demeaning if both parties are drunk?
Thought it was quite good tbh. I find the whole 'get pissed and laid' concept demeaning. Put it this way if a bloke was saying 'gonna take her out have a few ales and shag her' about your kid how would you feel? Yet most fellas think its ok when its them and someone elses daughter. degrading imo

It can have serious implications on a divorce case though. I think the balance is fine. It's certainly better than stoning an adulterer though (which only happens to these super-equal Muslim women, of course).
not the point, divorce cases arent won on right and wrong in most cases. The point is one is illegal and the other is not which is ridiculous.
The stoning of adulterers, and its MEN and women, bit shows your ignorance again. Stoning is not actually in the Quran.
What you see going on in the world today is actually down more to western style courts rather than Islamic/Sharia methods
As usual, I'm glad you're not in charge.
yeah because extra marital affairs, illigitimate and fatherless children etc etc are much better

It doesn't matter that Allah is talking to Jesus. Jesus was a man as well.
Allah i stalking to the muslims about what he said to Jesus. And yes Jesus was a man. Also think as the conversation has progressed you have forgotten what I was responding to. Is it another I dont care moment?
And if Allah knows best when to inflict suffering, what have the Syrians done to deserve such a hard time recently?
You answered the question yourself, Allah knows best. Allah also removed the people in noahs time too.

I thought Islam was supposed to be the "religion of peace"? But even the angels are violent? Doesn't really fit does it?
see this is what I mean when I say you 'follow the crowd' 'show ignorance' 'have no knowledge' etc. Who told you Islam was a religion of peace?
in the words of Malik al shabbaz (Malcolm X) ''There is nothing in our book, the Koran, that teaches us to suffer peacefully. Our religion teaches us to be intelligent. Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery. Thats a good religion.''
Fair enough. I'm still learning here. But I don't like what I see to be fair Fan. I always thought some Muslim beliefs were odd, but some of the stuff in the Quran is despicable.
see this sentence is how it should be. accept, acknowledge and question. No need for insults etc Tell me what you find despicable and I will be happy to clarify and provide context. As for the 'odd' beliefs. You are not alone, what I mean is some of the beliefs that people claimto be Islamic even I find odd. However I dont take a persons view as being necessarily the truth

Thats not the whole quote
Here's where I come back to what you said earlier:

As I said its not the whole quote. you are 'picking and choosing'. by your definition then is this Islamophobia on your part?

And how many did he kill in battle?
himself none. 1 person (Ubay bin Khalaf) was killed by the prophet when the person attacked him in the mosque. Muhammad fought in 27 battles and sent around 46 forays. Most ending without bloodshed. The total number of deaths (muslim and non muslim) is reported as 1018 by some

Yes, sex slaves in Rochdale.
so you attributing pimping and the sex industry to modern muslims now?

I said: "You're right though....fornication.
There was no such implication, fornication is the 2nd most serious crime in Allahs eyes. shirk (associating partners with Allah) being the first. Hence I pointed to that.This is regardless of how many times etc. Aside from the obvious fornication with the girls I am not really that knowledgeable about what each guy did to what person and how old they were. The sexual abuse alone ensures punishment. The punishment in the hereafter begins in the grave. some indications such as a raging fire etc are given.
Thereby implying that everything else (suffering caused to a non-believer) WAS Islamic.
Again there was no implication of the sort, just you jumping to conclusions. As I have said it is haram for a person to cause suffering to another, muslim/non muslim. As for Allah causing suffering I couldnt say as I clearly dont have that knowledge. What I might see as A might be B.
It's not that complicated Fan. But then again, you're not that clever.
I didnt say it was complicated, just asked for clarification and once providd I have answered
As fo not being that clever, I have never really claimed to be 'clever' , however I have always held the belief that a wise man always asks for clarification
Its the idiot who responds without

 

beeling? only if it means laughing my ass off

I have really got to you havent I? You mention me virtually everyday on totally unrelated threads, some I havent commented on

seriously how old are you?

There is a story with the paparevolution thing, will be revealed in time

 

doesnt bother me in the slightest in all honesty. But its a bit disingenious really. I get on allright with most of the people on here and get some decent PMs etc. The 'usual crew' of you and ST etc are not really that relevant tbh. If you didnt post/respond on my threads you wouldnt exist for me . The fact that most of you mention me virtually everyday on various threads indicates the issue is with yourself. I recognise this place for what it is, for you guys its the centre of your lives and your 'job'

 

Yes you could have responded, with an insult towards ME. Why would you have had to respond with something against my kids?
I have NEVER insulted your kids Fan, yet you have mine. My disabled child. That means one of 2 things: (a) you're a scumbag, (b) I'd wound you up so much you acted out of character. Which is it?
Also, you think the fact that you use terms like "beautiful" rather than "fit as ****" to describe women makes you "better". And yet you're willing to mock disabled children when no one else did so provoke you? You're obviously not "better", are you?
That is why I said I wont. I didnt 'insult' your lad it was part of a conversation. you just played the situation. Using your son falsely to win an argument makes you the biggets scumbag imo
As someone who studied english you should know its all about words and how you use them.

It wasn't a spelling error, it was a typo. Do you seriously think I cannot spell "firstly"?
If its spelt wrong its a spelling error
You respond in kind a lot don't you? Whether it's criticising spelling/grammar, talking about winning/owning, or the use of slang like "beel". Why don't you just use your own style?
I like to let the other person set the ground rules and then 'speak their lingo' as it were. Its just the kind of nice guy I am

Who on here believes the earth is flat?
I dont know about here, I know the majority once did and the minority were proved wrong. By your reckoning the majority prevails and minority should do one

ST doesn't get "ridiculed by all". He actually tends to get on well with most, even some of the Rangers fans, it's only idiots he argues with. BH has no problems with anybody apart from those affiliated with Celtic/Ireland. Whereas posters of all different persuasions unite in ridiculing you.
You reckon? not from what I read. And its the same old same old, those who have not a lot to say in fact and resort to posting people ****ting etc. It seems you are happiest amongst those, thought you were better than that

"Beel" wasn't invented on this forum you dimwit. It's Scottish slang. Anyway, you already speak English now, you don't need to add bits of slang. People understand me just fine, and I don't ape them as you do.
never heard of it before or since on anywhere but here. You also use these words so do 'ape' them

Then you misunderstood. To make it as clear as possible: How many of Muhammad's wives were children?
you werent clear enough. and the answer is still 0

I followed it very well. Let's go back to the initial point, where you were saying that the seemingly discredited bloke, (was it Bukhari?) who claimed Aisha had sex as a small child was incorrect, and that it should be disregarded because most others disagreed. Basically that means you accept that common consensus should be respected. It also doesn't fit with your argument with PnP, where you're happy to accept the views of ONE holocaust denier over MANY others. You're just full of hypocrisy and contradiction.
no bukhari collected the hadiths etc, other people said/reported them. And the acceptance isnt based on common consensus its based on research and finding the dates times etc as explained earlier. The pNP argument (though irrlevant) doesnt support your assertions as there again its about someone making a claim and no one able to prove it wrong.

No, it doesn't get to me. Why don't you rise above it?
I often do, and it clearly gets to you as you mention it so many times on so many threads even when I havent been on for ages

But we were talking about me first, then you applied it to my daughter. I have a wife. So I just applied my situation to my daughter.
Who do you know who needs to be drunk to shag his wife anyway? You keep mentioning it, but I don't know anyone like that.
I simply asked a question. It seems ok for a fella to get a lass pissed for sex, but if it was a daughter how would the same fella feel
I never said 'needs to be drunk' I said when drunk. YOU admitted having sex when both of you were drunk

You said Allah decides who should suffer. I imagine the children who've been killed in Syria have suffered. Why does Allah want that? Is he a bit of a twat?
Should a child have to endure murder before they go to heaven?
As I said Allah knows best. Those killed in syria may have suffered more if they had lived, maybe Allah spared them the suffering created by man
Every soul shall taste death, that is the message. To get to heaven death is a prerequisite.

You mentioned some western marital problems, I mentioned some Muslim ones.
The 'problems' I mentioned are not specifically western, as fatherless/illigitimate families are not limited to the western world. The problems you mentioned are not limited to predominatley muslim countries and crtainly are not Islamic. so wrong on both counts


009.123
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.
PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him).
SHAKIR: O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).

How else can that be taken?
not sure how this addresses what I wrote, and you havent posted this before. With regards to how it should be taken its simple. This part of surah Taubah was revealed at the time of the Battle of Tabuk and the verses between 119-127 are giudance to the muslims during battle. Again read it up in the commentary/tafsir.

Then you are being obtuse. People say Hitler killed 6 million Jews, people say Stalin killed 20 million, people say Mao Tse Tung killed 50 million. Do they really mean these men literally did so with their own hands? Do they ****. Answer the question, how many were killed at Mo's bidding/command/encouragement?
Do you actually read what I post? Because I have broken down the battles and forays and total killed. There you go with the 'people say' look it up yourself and reach your own informed conclusions.

But Estes is also Muslim. Do you not respect anyone who isn't Muslim?
So what if he is muslim? He is american and western and I respect him which answers your assertions. Do I repsect anyone who isnt muslim? thats a little more complicated, however regardless of the answer being yes/no it still goes against your assertions as non muslim isnt limited to the 'western world'

Or YOU could reread, give it a bit of thought, and try and understand. Consider it a challenge.
I read and responded as I understood/thought appropriate. You didnt like the response and 'cannot be bothered' to say what you meant. Just explain it and as you see I will respond

Explain what it means then.
explain what what means? You have posted snippets of something and I have asked you to post the whole quote, yet you refuse to do so this time, you had no problems with the quranic quotes earlier. why is this? Just get the whole quote on here and I will break it down for you. and I mean the whole quote including the stuff in the brackets

OK then. When do you think that will be? What can you foresee happening that will ready you?
as I said when I am good and ready. I forsee a few things which will also be revealed

And yet someone on here angered you so much you mocked their disabled child, despite having a disabled child yourself. Hmm. Doesn't matter to you at all does it?

you think you angered me? honestly your not even remotely relevant. You just used your lad as an excuse to stop the discussion by crying to syd. There was no other way out for you. You started something that you couldnt finish. If anything you were the one who continued to be angry and even though i couldnt respond you continued to spout your anger. You didnt believ I had a disabled son if i remember correctly. But now to suit I have? is there any lengths you wont stoop to?
Further to this I notice you ALWAYS come onto my threads, whereas I rarely do so with yours (truth be known they usually draw a couple of comments at best) why is that? surely if I insulted your disabled lad you should have nothing to do with me?

 

...

You think this forum is extreme? ****in' hell ... I need to introduce you to some other forums. You'd run away crying.

 

No, he said it used to be extreme. Are you ****ing stupid or something?

 

Just to clarify one point here, as it's me being mentioned, but this isn't how logic works:
"The pNP argument (though irrlevant) doesnt support your assertions as there again its about someone making a claim and no one able to prove it wrong."

It isn't logical to believe either unsubstantiated or unfalsifiable claims.
Carl Sagan's Dragon In My Garage bit is a good example of this.
His summary follows:
"what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true."

Not entirely applicable to Fan's belief in Krege's claims, but spot on for the thinking behind his, "you can't disprove it, though", thinking.
Krege hasn't given anyone any reason to believe his claims and there are obvious faults with what he's asserted.
Fan believes because he wants it to be true. He starts with belief and then fits the facts around that, dismissing any evidence that he doesn't like or that doesn't fit his belief.
It's the absolute opposite of logic, basically.

 

Firstly Fan, I'm not going to respond to some of what you've said. Much of it is going round in circles.
its mostly responses to you, but if you concede thats fine


When I say you mocked my son, I wasn't referring to the time you said he might not suffer. It irritated me at the time that you thought you might know better than me, but you weren't mocking him.
why did it irritate you? I was basing it on what I firmly believe, I think heaven is the ultimate goal so saying your lad was going there was the biggest compliment I could pay him
Also here is the problem, I specifically said I didnt want to go into what I thought with your lad, YOU pushed it. once YOU did that I was happy to continue presenting my point of view, using my own lad as an example
You mocked him several times in response to me threatening to merge your very similar threads. For example, when I posted a pic of a crying baby, you replied "is that child autistic?"clearly in reference to the child, and the topic was autism (http://www.not606.com/showthread.php...30#post2237530) Also, when you said "are autistic kids the new spastics?" again I fail to see the reference to your son, also you know full well I too have an autistic son. Following the conversation its funny you were accusing me of saying 'white girls are easy' and comparing me to the *****s from rochdale. This response was no different to my response to your 'no smoke withot fire' comment(http://www.not606.com/showthread.php...01#post2361201). Or "there are a few on here with mong kids" again clearly a response to the PNEawf guy and it questioned why he was picking on mongs, and a few on here have mong kids. If what you say is true then having a kid with autism myself it includes me?(http://www.not606.com/showthread.php...52#post2369152). You know what you said though Fan, you're just a lying twat.
I think the lying twat is you and an utter scumbag to boot, using your son as a reason to convince sid to ban me. It also further highlights how you pick and choose quotes that suit your argument. I also like how on that particular thread after I had been banned you continued to post calling me allsorts and accusing me of allsorts knowing full well i couldnt respond. I guess that how you roll. I call it cowardice

You said Bukhari's hadith was the only one that said Aisha was 6. All the others disagreed. Ergo you used common consensus.
you are really hard work but here goes. There are 'collections' of hadiths that were collated and put together by certain people. These collections are named after the scholars who did the collation, so Bukhari is one set collated by Imam Muhammad Bukhari and Muslim is another collated by Imam Muslim
Hadith means 'a piece of information conveyed either in a small quantity or large' in arabic and are basically sayings and actions of teh prophet and sometimes his companions. The hadiths have a chronological list of narrators reaching the origin of the saying or action. The quality and sttrength/weakness of teh narration depends on it sorigin and who said what to whom. If multiple independent sources first hand witnessed the prophet saying something for example and one differs the agreed upon is stronger. If someone heard it first hand then it is stronger than if someone heard it of someone etc. In a nutshell.
What is important to note is that both Bukhari and Muslim dont omit the weak/shed prophet in a bad light narrations. They collated everything warts and all. Its when you explore the chronology etc that paints a true picture

You did say that Fan. Look back.
I did and you are wrong

Surely if Allah is powerful, he can stop the suffering caused by man? Unless he doesn't want to.
Yes he can and often does. As I said a child being killed may seem like suffering to you but Allah may have taken that child to prevent it from suffering
A little like the wife/parent/children of those campaigning to be allowed to die. Its actually o stop suffering no?

This addresses thru despicable parts of the Quran and encouraging causing suffering to non-believers. Which you said was only in the hereafter first of all, then changed to Allah was actually talking to angels, not people.
No this tells them to stay firm in battle as clearly identified in the verses before and after the one you chose to pick. The suffering of the non believers in the hereafter AND that suffering cannot be inflicted on a non believer by a believer were in realtion to the assertion that somehow the men in rochdale were doing Gods work
The talking to angels was in reference to your quote at teh time and referred to the battle of Badr
The 3 scenaruos are different and to try and link them now is ludicrous and a little desperate IMO

When I said 'people say', I meant 'this is common parlance'.
so you did go back and read the figures I gave you? I am of course assuming as you didnt address that bit.
You call it common parlance, I call it just you following the crowd. The advice was to look it up and draw your own conclusions, I believe that is common parlance amongst intellectuals these days?

Which non-Muslims do you respect then?
yet again you have failed to respond to all the points and come bac with a desperate looking question, anyhow I respect my father in law, my mother in law, my brother/sister in law etc

Why do you refuse to explain that bit?
refuse? I have simply asked you to post the whole quote, in its entirety and for some reason you wont, why IS that?
incidentally if you posted the whole quote it would simply be a case of highlighting a couple of things in response. So I ask again post it all or at least tell me and anyone else reading why you wont, after all you bought it up
you think you angered me? honestly your not even remotely relevant.
You sounded pretty angry in this thread: http://www.not606.com/showthread.php...0-Mods-on-here






Originally Posted by thefanwithnoname

Is this acceptable?

'If I got really sick of you *****, I wouldn't even have to ask for you to be banned. I'd just start deleting all your threads and comments.'

Do/should mod powers allow for this?

I dont see how you relate that to being 'angry' tbh. Most of my threads are similar to this see the atheists thread and teh get tae **** comment, that sounds more 'angry' but it wasnt anger in fact reading back it made for some good banter
Plus when you posted the same thread about 20 times


Plus when you posted the same thread about 20 times [/QUOTE]

That was to give you something to do, If it was anger shouldnt I have stormed off or something? I think you are getting desperate now as i have answered everything you have thrown, insults and all. Now you are diverting from some of the things you wrote (I see the quotes etc have dried up for example) and trying to grasp at straws

 

Only difference being Treblinka exists as a place and even the studies carried out as late as 2010 havent revealed anything. Krege said he found nothing there. Subsequent studies (colls, the 2010 team etc) havent been able to counter this. If they do find evidence I will happily concede
As a follower of science thisis what you should believe, evidence and facts.