Former Aologiest for Gay Theology

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
No, I was thinking more along the lines of...

"an empty, voluble, pretentious talker."

The British version isn't too far off, either...

"a voluble person who has little of interest to communicate."

yes the old splurge and scourge 'em is getting a bit tedious these days.

Originally posted by FMF
So you don't like or agree with the stuff I post, is that what you're getting at? 😉

no he finds your approach tedious, bereft and dull.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no he finds your approach tedious, bereft and dull.

Well, I am aware I have my detractors. But I already knew he was one of them as he's said so before. So I am not really sure what he wants me to do about it suddenly now.

Originally posted by FMF
Well, I am aware I have my detractors. But I already knew he was one of them as he's said so before. So I am not really sure what he wants me to do about it suddenly now.

Maybe he wants you to spruce up your act dude?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Maybe he wants you to spruce up your act dude?

Some posters here appear to put on an act, but I don't count myself among them.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No that is logically fallacious, because the fact that he does not cite the 26 studies by name, or by author does not necessitate that he fabricated their existence and lets be clear it would be a very tedious lecture if he did cite every single source would it not? So you are also being unreasonable. He does cite the author of several studies and t ...[text shortened]... nd these 26 studies does not mean that they do not exists, it simply means you cannot find them.

Hilarious. You're unable to condemn violence against homosexuals because no evidence has been provided, yet this YouTube video hasn't provided evidence for the studies it allegedly cites and here you are defending the maker of the video. Hypocrite much!?

This person doesn't have to cite the studies in the video, put them in the description.

Originally posted by FMF
Some posters here appear to put on an act, but I don't count myself among them.

So you really are as tedious in life, I find that difficult to believe.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
So you really are as tedious in life, I find that difficult to believe.

You're calling me tedious yet again.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Hilarious. You're unable to condemn violence against homosexuals because no evidence has been provided, yet this YouTube video hasn't provided evidence for the studies it allegedly cites and here you are defending the maker of the video. Hypocrite much!?

This person doesn't have to cite the studies in the video, put them in the description.

I am unable to condemn anyone on the basis of no evidence or a vague generality. There is in law such a thing as due process and the rule of law which means in essence that there are certain formalities that must be met and that no one is above the law. Evidence must also be established and corroborated, therefore without any of these necessary prerequisites i am unable and unwilling to condemn anyone as I have explained ad nauseum on these forums.

If you have any reason and/or any evidence as to why the lecturer may have fabricated theses studies then let it be heard. I am defending the science for it appears to me that the lecturer made it quite clear what the issues where and substantiated his reason with logic. If you wish to refute the data or the logic then please feel free and I promise that I will listen to what you have to say but this petty sniping is beneath you and is an affront to my personal majesty and dignity and as a sentient, rational human being.

Originally posted by FMF
You're calling me tedious yet again.

Not just I FMF, Suzzianne, Freaky and who knows who else?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am unable to condemn anyone on the basis of no evidence or a vague generality.

If someone revealed to you that he had beaten up homosexuals because he hated them, would you condemn both the violence he perpetrated and the hatred that he professed?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Not just I FMF, Suzzianne, Freaky and who knows who else?

It's par for the course on a message board where there is debate and discussion and people have different beliefs..

Originally posted by FMF
If someone revealed to you that he had beaten up homosexuals because he hated them, would you condemn both the violence he perpetrated and the hatred that he professed?

I would consider the evidence, the circumstances and attempt to understand the reasons why it was perpetrated. I may also condemn the violence.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
[b If you wish to refute the data or the logic then please feel free ....[/b]

Have you got links to the 26 studies you mentioned?

Originally posted by FMF
It's par for the course on a message board where there is debate and discussion and people have different beliefs..

you think so, its not really a reflection of the experience people have in interacting with you?