Originally posted by FeivelFeivel, every one knows that you have an axe to grind with me so just build a bridge and get over it. And I challenge you to produce just one post that I have written that clearly proves that I am of the anti-semitic
I for one am tired of the anti-semitic moron's remarks. It seems from the posts I just read I am NOT the only one who thinks so. I am starting a formal petition to either ban skeeter from the forums or ban her from the site. Apparently that is the only way she will stop slinging her moronic diatribe around the forums. Perhaps skeeter will do us all a favor ( ...[text shortened]... she will decide to leave on her own so she can save what little self-respect she has.
Feivel
persuasion. Be careful now.
skeeter
Originally posted by skeeterWoooowwwwwwwwwwww !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:'(
Feivel, every one knows that you have an axe to grind with me so just build a bridge and get over it. And I challenge you to produce just one post that I have written that clearly proves that I am of the anti-semitic
persuasion. Be careful now.
skeeter
Originally posted by OmnislashI considered the possibility that Jesus' question on the cross was rhetorical, but i doubt whether even the son of god would be cool enough to ask rhetorical questions after being flogged to a bloody pulp, crowned with thorns and nailed to a couple of logs. i think the poor guy really did expect some kind of deliverance at the last moment, and was a bit disappointed when nothing eventuated...Anyway, the distinction/identity of the trinity is of importance if we are to decide if the church's teaching on this is actually coherent or not. personally i've never been able to make sense of the idea. i don't think bbarr
Ever hear of a rhetorical question? The distinction between the identities of the triune god are only relevant if you are concerned with the concept of salvation by grace. If Christ was not fully god the entire time he walked the Earth, t ...[text shortened]... early states in the book of John that he is god, pure and simple.
's burrito analogy works, because it is as if the layers are the whole at the same time as they are parts, which is not true of the layers in a burrito. it was pretty funny though, bennett ;-)
As my knowledge is as limited about religions as it is at chess I will not post a comment concerning this topic here...
I do however have to say that freedom of speech should be remained at all times... Michelle has not used any 4 letter words (which I understand in prohibited in these forums to protect the younger generation playing chess here), hence her opinion is legitimate
What Michelle posted may or may not be ethical correct but it sure is her opinion and that she should be allowed to post regardless of the outcome ... If you personally agree with her is then up to you, but at least you have one more opinion on this topic, whether it is a good one or not...
Where would this world be if people can't express their opinions no more ??
Regards
The Freedom Pawn
Originally posted by The Slow PawnFreedom of speech should definitely be allowed, I agree! But if I am given that right, I could say I am abusing it if I am constantly stating the same, rather negative views of something.
blah blah blah
Then again, it's not really freedom of speech if we're not free to... well... speak.
Originally posted by DreamlaXBy indicating abuse (and telling me that stating the same, rather negative views of something ...) you have already formed an opinion mate ... An opinion you could have never build without Skeeter initial post, so your whole post is an oxymoron mate
Freedom of speech should definitely be allowed, I agree! But if I am given that right, I could say I am abusing it if I am constantly stating the same, rather negative views of something.
Then again, it's not really freedom of speech if we're not free to... well... speak.
Boris
PS: Your bla bla bla quote really f**ed me off, if you are not interested what I post how about shutting the f**k up about it !!
Originally posted by The Slow PawnJust because Skeeter has the right to post whatever she wants doesn't mean that she needs to use it.
As my knowledge is as limited about religions as it is at chess I will not post a comment concerning this topic here...
I do however have to say that freedom of speech should be remained at all times... Michelle has not used any 4 letter words (which I understand in prohibited in these forums to protect the younger generation playing chess here), he ...[text shortened]... this world be if people can't express their opinions no more ??
Regards
The Freedom Pawn
Every single player on RHP can say something that will upset someone else, but there are only a few that chose to do this, and skeeter is one of them.
If there is some explanation for skeeter's hatred torwards Jewish people, I am willing to listen, but to me it seems that she just enjoys pissing people off.
What upsetes me the most about skeeter's posts is that she doesnt even take what she says seriously, she says horrible stuff with a great impact as a joke, and without any apperant reason.
Originally posted by The Slow PawnI had edited your original post by accident and couldn't remember what you originally typed. I'm sorry if I offended you but I seriously didn't mean to.
PS: Your bla bla bla quote really f**ed me off, if you are not interested what I post how about shutting the f**k up about it !!
Also, I didn't say posting your opinion is wrong, I said continuously posting a conventionally negative view would be like going into a Christian church and belittling the name of Jesus. It's freedom of speech, but if a majority is not listening or considers it negative, then it becomes "unwanted" I suppose.
Then again, that's just my opinion, hehe 😉.
Shaul,
as I said, I will not get into the discussion of right or wrong here (I have an opinion but would like to keep that to myself for a change)...
Fact is that you recognised the right principle behind what I meant... All you need to do now is appreciate Skeeter as she is ... And as you have made up your mind about the content of her posts, I would (in your position) simply ignore her words.
I am sure that if you have a vast majority of people behind you (and by the looks of the forum that is the case) then people will agree with you and point their finger to Skeeter (as people do here) ...
I am not trying to preach here or anything like that, I just feel very strongly that even the worst possible opinion phrased about a opinion has still more value then if you don't allow that person her/his opinion....
Boris
Originally posted by dfm65Hi. dfm65, you ask a very good question. One thing to remember is that Jesus was convicted as an innocent man. I will have to think about this to give a better answer, but yes, Jesus knew from the foundation of the earth what the plan of salvation for mankind was.
I considered the possibility that Jesus' question on the cross was rhetorical, but i doubt whether even the son of god would be cool enough to ask rhetorical questions after being flogged to a bloody pulp, crowned with thorns and nailed to a couple of logs. i think the poor guy really did expect some kind of deliverance at the last moment, and was a bit disap ...[text shortened]... are parts, which is not true of the layers in a burrito. it was pretty funny though, bennett ;-)