Arguing with Rebel on the internet: 1. He asks you a question which implies that you have accused him of saying or doing something. (see previous posts re: brown hat) 2. You point out that you didn't say any such thing. 3. Rebel responds that he never said you did. 4. You point out that his argument is nonsense while making a jokey reference towards him 5. Rebel responds by using the same jokey reference, only reversed ("no, you're a jobby") 6. Rebel claims to win the argument. And on and on and on...
I don't even know why he brought you into that **** with Dan. Dan quoted this And put a point across about him flaunting intelligence while at the same time insulting people. 5 Posts in and hes already ****ing forgot where the argument started - talk about tripping up over yourself.
So consistent you lost track of why dan said what he did not even an hour later. I believe I read somewhere earlier you talked about ST going off on mad tangents? Tell me I'm wrong - let GC see what a real fanny you are.
The worst thing about it is that I was having a genial discussion with Dev about the logic of believing in God before this fruit loop jumped in and started accusing me of saying things I didn't even say.
No it wasn't. You genuinely meant it and there is nothing you can say to convince me otherwise. That is how this works right? Or is it only you who gets to decide the inflection and tone of what people are typing?
Sure, why not. From now on, and using the evidence available, I'm going to treat your posts the same way I do Medro's, on the presumption that you're an inaniloquent imbecile who suffers from sebastomania. Now **** off.
Suits me fine. I am glad you have decided to use evidence instead of making stuff up. Debates tend to work a lot better that way. It is pretty much what I have been asking for. You may want to also work on your diagnostic skills as the next step from providing the evidence is under what circumstances you obtained this evidence and what qualifies you to interpret it. You keep trying though son. You are doing just super.
It's simple Dev. People don't live in a bubble and their self-delusion can have a negative impact on other peoples lives. As I pointed out earlier, a lady died recently in Ireland because they have enshrined in law some dogma they've inferred from a 'magical' book.
So would it be fair to say that your problem is with religion and not with a belief in God? EDIT: Organised religion.
