Get Ready For A Surprise: What The Bible Says About Marriage

Top 62. Mar 27, 2005 2:23 PM

» plox - Re: Re: Re: Better run to it, Richard - name-calling

In response to Re: Re: Better run to it, Richard - name-calling posted by RichardSpeaks:

What gives?

Just that any "conversation" the current CE of Biblical Apologetics contributes to, usually degenerates into personality clashes with the other posters you named.

I didn't know jerrib was in the fundy doghouse too.

-- posted by plox

Top 63. Mar 27, 2005 2:52 PM

» RichardSpeaks - Re: Re: Re: Re: Better run to it, Richard - name-calling

In response to all

Actually, jerrib is not a part of this. That was a slip on my part. If you see this, jerrib, I apologize.

I guess this whole thing has been prompted by my remembrance of my fundamentalist days. Most of the people I knew at that time were a lot like Boanerges. They knew they had the truth and were not about to let anyone else even express their view without some kind of put-down. So I do understand it. I still don't like it.

By the way, the one who sort of threatened me with not participating anymore, well, that's the sort of thing I'm talking about. Threats, names, insults. Crap!

I don't know how many hits your subjects and titles get each month, but I get a lot. So, I guess I won't worry about losing readers just now. And I say this with the greatest respect to all of you. I may not like everything you add, but I still respect you all as persons, even Bo.

-- posted by RichardSpeaks

Top 64. Mar 27, 2005 2:58 PM

» plox - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Better run to it, Richard - name-calling

In response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Better run to it, Richard - name-calling posted by RichardSpeaks:

Do the hits go up when the discussion threads are active?

btw, I was relieved to read your explanation of what you mean when you say you love me.
The way I use the word is as slang expressing my fondness for certain desserts, or a term of affection for certain people I am bonded to for life.

-- posted by plox

Top 65. Mar 27, 2005 3:48 PM

» _Boanerges_ - Thanks Richard :)

In response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Better run to it, Richard - name-calling posted by RichardSpeaks:

I may not like everything you add, but I still respect you all as persons, even Bo.

Thanks, Richard! As you well notice, I do not participate much in your topic. Not because of you, which I find you to be okie in my book, but obviously we do not agree on truth. But, this does not divide us, or.. at least I am not divided by these things.

I appreciate the distance you place yourself from all this that takes place. I am glad that you are not in full vocal support of this "wall of separation" that Phil attempts to bring up, imposing what he considers to be a 'jerk' or 'nasty' or whatever else he claims. It is wrong to think that he can attack Christian beliefs with impunity, while taking away my right to respond to that which is either bogus or an outright false claim. That is called dialog!

The [idea] that he is only asking 'questions' is but a bogus claim, when it is obvious his blatant attack on Fundamental Christian Doctrine, then the attempt to silence those with some imagined 'separation wall' by claiming someone as being 'nasty' or a 'jerk', etc.. It is actually laughable, as he has insulted me personally, over and again in these last several messages, yet I have not complained even once. I ain't even mad at him smile as I accept people like this all day long as part of life. I have the right to protest to any [idea] or [thought] that is presented as truth, according to the TOS, especially claims like [plox] tried to put forward as something that is true, which is obviously a lie, as according to the contract by which all FW's agree to with Suite101, allowing fair mediation in these discussions.

I will add though that from here on out, if you think I personally have name called someone, please provide the support to back up the claim. Otherwise, please do not include me into the lot of "attention everyone".....

Thanks.. __W

-- posted by _Boanerges_

Top 66. Mar 27, 2005 5:11 PM

» Pinky102 - Re: Thanks Richard :)

In response to Thanks Richard smile

posted by _Boanerges_:

"It is wrong to think that he can attack Christian beliefs with impunity, while taking away my right to respond to that which is either bogus or an outright false claim. That is called dialog!"

Well, there's a good example of my complaint. Wendell takes something I post and turns it into something I didn't say--faulting me for saying what I didn't say and never intended to say.

I don't try to shut down anyone's right to post their ideas; but, when then spin my words to be something I didn't say, it upsets me. I believe we should all treat each other justly.

Now, Wendell appears to treat Richard with a little more respect that he would give to any person who is not a CE. I don't think he wants to be deleted or to have a fight with another CE.

Maybe I'm wrong. What do others have to say?

-- posted by Pinky102

Top 67. Mar 27, 2005 5:21 PM

» _Boanerges_ - not much to add.......

In response to Re: Thanks Richard smile

posted by Pinky102:

Phil: I don't try to shut down anyone's right to post their ideas

Phil: "there's a good example of my complaint. Wendell takes something I post and turns it into something I didn't say--faulting me for saying what I didn't say and never intended to say."

Phil When I first came on the site, it was because I wanted to develop some dialog with others on the ideas of Christian Fundamentalism.

Phil: There was a little dialog; but, generally, I was verbally castigated for standing up my questioning ways.

Phil: Then Wendell came on the scene most vehemently doing whatever he could to make me look like I was some sour minded person who couldn't think straight about truth.

Phil: He, seemingly, has a strategy to knock anyone out of any discussion in which ideas are being entertained that go against his belief that he has found all the answers to any questions anyone can come up with.

Phil:If we let him alone, then he gets up on his soap box and assumes a position of authority of which all others are expected to accept or they incur his wrath and literal abuse.

Phil: His narcissistic ways make it difficult for anyone to put an issue on the table with which he is in disagreement.

Phil: He was such a rascal that his log in was deleted on at least three occasions, I think.

Phil: no complaints against his anctics have been successful. More to the point, he has learned how to operate within the framework of a literal interpretation of the rules and the authority here just allows him to continue without any regard for his ways.

Phil: So, we speak up against his nastiness.

Phil: Maybe that makes some of us look like we're being nasty without provocation. We aren't. It is because of Boanerges.

Phil: Maybe you've noticed how he tries to shut down any discussions that go against his wishes.

Phil: He doesn't either with "declarations speaking his position into reality" or by polluting the thread so that the stream of thought is lost and any would be participants just throw up their hands and leave.

Phil: His ways are nasty and that does tend to breed contempt from the others. He has a few people sho close their eyes to his nastiness for whatever reason and praise him for his poetry and articles. Who knows?

Wendell: All you (Phil) have to do to make your point valid is show us where in our Constitution or Declaration where a WALL of anything is presented! Then, as I have already said, you would have a good argument.
As concerns the Biblical manuscripts, scholars do not argue the validity of the 5,000+ NT documents. There is no argument concerning the authenticity of those documents, which, total more than any documents of all ancient history. Just another simple fact of God's providence in the affairs of men!
If someone like Hawknut makes the claim that they are manipulated, then it is up to her to show everyone why this is true! Of course, she never does.

<----- not much needs to be added to this conversation, since both of them are unwilling to substantiate theirs claims, which I have objected to as false and misleading. But really and seriously, I'm not really bothered by this. Although, I am not really sure why we get all this rhetoric, rather than simply anwswering these simple questions. I suppose they do not think they can be questioned?? Who knows?...

-- posted by _Boanerges_

Top 68. Mar 27, 2005 6:27 PM

» Pinky102 - Re: not much to add.......

In response to not much to add....... posted by _Boanerges_:

Like I said, your efforts are more aimed at shutting down dialog and proving that others are wrong than they are in trying to help build understanding about anything.

I don't have the time or inclination to go through your posts and to quote so extensively from them and then to lay down a couple of words only a very biased person would give any credance to. But, here you are proving my point again. For further examples of Wendells bullishness go to the Critical Thinking thread and read how he tried to shut that thread down by claiming it was dead. He's a bully and is very impolite. His actions bring out the worst in every one. And, it dates back to his first entry at the suite.

Remember when he was posting with the big sword as though he were God's personal guard trying to do every devil in that didn't get in line? Remember Esoteric Front?

One of his favorite tricks is to cut and paste thousands of words of copy in an attempt to pollute any thread he doesn't think gives support to his ideas.

-- posted by Pinky102