Altruism as good as sex and chocolate?

nkb wrote

The joke's on you, Lily. That was intentional.

Yeah. Right. :rolleyes:

Waddlie wrote

Umm. What the fuck? Political realm? :wall::wall::wall:

Will someone please shoot me in the face? Please?

Sure, what time should I come over?

[nkb]

anthonyjfuchs wrote

Your cownting skills leave much to be desired.

Here, let me make it easier for you (bolded above)

nkb wrote

Here, let me make it easier for you (bolded above)

He isn't intelligent enough to come up with that. At least not on his own. I say it is a spelling error. You can think what you want.

[nkb]

Lily wrote

He isn't intelligent enough to come up with that. At least not on his own. I say it is a spelling error. You can think what you want.

Yes, because the 'u' and the 'w' are so close together on the keyboard. :rolleyes:

[anthonyjfuchs]

What a waste of a good pun. I had originally written "counting," then went back in to change it to "cownting," all the while thinking, "she's such an intellectual termite that she's going to think this is a typo." But hey, Lily says it's a spelling error, so a spelling error it must have been.

Thank you for trying, nkb.

[nkb]

The funniest part about it is, the pun itself was good on its own, but became hilarious when Lily thought she caught you in a typo.

Well, maybe you have really fat fingers, that cover 6 keys across. In that case, kudos to you for so few typos in all your postings. :thumbsup:

[anthonyjfuchs]

Of course it was a typo! It couldn't have been anything else! I'm too stoopid and crayzee to pull together a decent pun! WHY DON'T YOU JUST GO READ ACTS!!!!!

Lily wrote

He isn't intelligent enough to come up with that. At least not on his own.

Let me just file this away for the next time Lily demands that she never-ever-ever insults anyone here...

anthonyjfuchs wrote

Of course it was a typo! It couldn't have been anything else! I'm too stoopid and crayzee to pull together a decent pun! WHY DON'T YOU JUST GO READ ACTS!!!!!

Let me just file this away for the next time Lily demands that she never-ever-ever insults anyone here...

I demand that I never insult anyone here? I think you mean insist. For someone who combs through every message of mine trying to find fault with my sentence construction or spelling, you sure ought to expect the same treatment, if I acknowledge you at all.

I often insult people here. I give as good as I get, more's the pity. I make an exception for you. I don't normally respond to you because I don't find you even minimally well informed enough on the subjects of interest to me. Add to that the unrelenting viciousness of which you are quite proud-- well, I certainly will not reward you by responding which would necessitate sinking to a depth that I am not willing to descend to.

I can't believe I even bothered to respond to you this one time.

I think you'll find yourself wrong on both of those counts as Anthony is one of the more diplomatic members in the forum. Only will he resort to name calling when provoked or in some cases displays of extreme ignorance.

bryantee wrote

I think you'll find yourself wrong on both of those counts as Anthony is one of the more diplomatic members in the forum. Only will he resort to name calling when provoked or in some cases displays of extreme ignorance.

It is good of you to stick up for him and, possibly, with others he is a lot less aggressive. However, he is unusually hateful towards me at all times (unusual by forum standards).

I think you need only look at the messages he has posted in this thread alone to see that. Of course, the fact that I won't even acknowledge him anymore might have something to do with that. He really does try to get my attention and it is painful to watch but I am not crazy enough to get into any sort of exchange with him. I do set limits on my own combativeness.

[Sternwallow]

Lily wrote

Beyond that, I would suggest that you listen to the quite interesting McGrath / Dawkins discussion (link is in the similarly named thread). If you pay particular attention to McGrath, you may come away with a better idea of what I believe.

A very interesting and informative discussion, thank you for the link reference.

I suspect that you do not share McGrath's low esteem for truth as elicited from him by Dawkins.

[anthonyjfuchs]

Someone got egg on her face (that is egg, isn't it?), and now refuses to admit that she's embarassed. It'd almost be cute if it weren't so pathetic.

Lily wrote

I demand that I never insult anyone here? I think you mean insist.

I meant demand. Perhaps you don't like it as a synonym for insist. That's your prerogative; don't use is as one. Use insist; I prefered demand in this case because it conveys the forcefulness with which you insist that you'd never deign to insulting forum-members.

Lily wrote

For someone who combs through every message of mine trying to find fault with my sentence construction or spelling, you sure ought to expect the same treatment...

First; I don't comb through your messages. I only point out the glaring mistakes, and only because you harp about your 300 years experience studying Japanese architecture, or whatever degree you happen to have bought.

Second; I do expect my errors in "sentence construction or spelling" to be highlighted. "Demand v. insist" is a usage issue; and while I expect those to be highlighted as well, it is not a syntax, grammar or spelling issue.

Lily wrote

...if I acknowledge you at all.

There you go again, assuming that I care if you acknowledge me. Does the Poet Laureate care if the autistic six-year-olds acknowledge him? Does the psychiatrist care if the schizophrenics acknowledge him?

Lily wrote

I often insult people here.

Granted.

Lily wrote

I give as good as I get

If that's what you want to believe...

Lily wrote

I make an exception for you.

No, I think you've insulted me equally. I don't feel neglected.

Lily wrote

I don't normally respond to you because I don't find you even minimally well informed enough on the subjects of interest to me.

Is it ironic that interesting you is of no interest to me?

Lily wrote

Add to that the unrelenting viciousness of which you are quite proud-- well, I certainly will not reward you by responding which would necessitate sinking to a depth that I am not willing to descend to.

Ending a sentence with a preposition. For shame.

Lily wrote

I can't believe I even bothered to respond to you this one time.

No; that's irony. Complaining about the fact that you responded me in your response to me.

If you have something worth saying, please: say it. If not...well, I suspect you'll abuse my language anyway.

What meaningless nonsense.

anthonyjfuchs wrote

I meant demand. Perhaps you don't like it as a synonym for insist. That's your prerogative; don't use is as one.

Nice try. It's ridiculous but a nice try.

ajf wrote

First; I don't comb through your messages. I only point out the glaring mistakes, and only because you harp about your 300 years experience studying Japanese architecture, or whatever degree you happen to have bought.

O yes you do, Linguistic Dwarf. Of the 14 messages you have posted since yesterday 4:45 pm (or #318) all are directly about what I have written and 8 are directly addressed to me. I would say that that is demanding my attention. Well, you finally got it. Have you got anything to make the effort worth my while?

ajf wrote

"Demand v. insist" is a usage issue; and while I expect those to be highlighted as well, it is not a syntax, grammar or spelling issue.

So what? Your usage is wrong.

ajf wrote

There you go again, assuming that I care if you acknowledge me.

You obviously do. Why? Dunno. Maybe you didn't get enough attention as a child?

ajf wrote

Is it ironic that interesting you is of no interest to me?

No, it is a profound relief. Or would be if you didn't keep demanding answers from me.

ajf wrote

What meaningless nonsense.

Finally we agree on your contributions to any discussion I am involved in.

[Sternwallow]

Lily wrote

Ridiculous. When you descend into this sort of fatuous dishonesty, there is nothing left to do but leave you to it.

I wonder just how your leaving me to it will manifest itself? Perhaps you will cease to respond?

No. I recommended reading it in order to see how the Apostles presented their case to skeptical and sometimes hostile audiences.

I guess ceasing is not your plan of choice for “leaving me to it”...

About Acts, my mistake. Then you do not consider Acts to be evidence of the existence of the apostles? If you do so consider it, then what extra-Biblical references to the book or to those people have you?

No. The Gospels we have were written later. However they record the testimony of eye-witnesses.

I am sure that you do not mean the implication that the eye witnesses (whose existence is testified by the apostles, and their existence attested by the author of Acts as I said) were not honest and of good character.

Irrelevant, despite your triumphant and fatuous certainty that the parallel you wish to draw somehow ends the discussion.

“Fatuous” came up on your “Word-A-Day” calendar, didn’t it?

The allusion merely shows that a group of people, prepared to give testimony supporting other people and events that may well not have existed or happened, almost always surround charismatic leaders and, in the case of Jesus and several others, they flock to leaders they only know by stories.

None of the throngs of new apostles gathered just a year or two after the ascension could have ever seen Jesus and yet, on the strength of the tale/story/myth already in place about him they would willingly give their lives. This kind of devotion, based on hearsay, rather diminishes the case for the truth of Jesus or his word. Why should I take your word for these things you say, you'll believe anything so strongly that you could easily even justify “pious fraud”.

It should be easy for anyone with an IQ above 50 to predict how I will react to intellectual dishonesty and/or willful stupidity by now.

Evidently, young woman, you are not yet sufficiently experienced to understand the difference between willful stupidity (the refusal to become educated) and the state of having learned, understood and rejected for cause, those items that you claim without evidence are obvious, relevant and true.

As I lay my cards on the table in my posts, it is easy for everyone to decide just how honest or otherwise I am. Given your frequent complaint that members of this forum pick on you and everyone else with unremitting "vitriol", I expect to be soundly blasted if I post with so much as a comma out of place. In short, I do not accept your ill-considered and unsupported opinion of my honor.