Originally posted by galveston75Never sent any messages to the moderator? That's odd because this is your verbatim quote from that thread -
Nothing happened because I never sent any messages to the moderator. It seems an awefull lot of people here doesn't always know what they are talking about as usual.
And to flip the coin I expect nothing else from you but a comment like this. So we're even aren't we?????
I don't know but I did contact the moderator and we'll see. Maybe you guys don't get the concept of what a PM is? You know "Private message"?
http://www.chessatwork.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=150191&page=11
27 Mar 14
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobSorry, but I have to step in. Proper Knob and divegeester, to the neutral corners, please.
Never sent any messages to the moderator? That's odd because this is your verbatim quote from that thread -
I don't know but I did contact the moderator and we'll see. Maybe you guys don't get the concept of what a PM is? You know "Private message"?
http://www.chessatwork.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=150191&page=11
http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/102/590x/secondary/102840.jpg
27 Mar 14
Originally posted by Rank outsiderIf you represent the referee in that photo it appears that you are about to end Galvestons problems by breaking his neck ..😀
Sorry, but I have to step in. Proper Knob and divegeester, to the neutral corners, please.
http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/102/590x/secondary/102840.jpg
27 Mar 14
Originally posted by Rajk999
If you represent the referee in that photo it appears that you are about to end Galvestons problems by breaking his neck ..😀
Lord Nelson, Lord Beaverbrook, Sir Winston Churchill, Joseph Franklin Rutherford, Sir Anthony Eden, Clement Attlee, Henry Cooper, Nathan Knorr, Lady Diana. Charles Taze Russell, can you hear me? Charles Taze Russell, your boys took a hell of a beating! Your boys took a hell of a beating!
🙂
27 Mar 14
Originally posted by Rank outsiderThis would be more appropriate -
Sorry, but I have to step in. Proper Knob and divegeester, to the neutral corners, please.
http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/102/590x/secondary/102840.jpg
http://www.paintinghere.org/UploadPic/Unknown%20Artist/big/Muhammad%20Ali%20vs.%20Sonny%20Liston.jpg
27 Mar 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI'll tip my hat to your creativity, you obviously have a bit too much time on your hands. We always know though when your wheels have come off, the name calling begins. Drool appears to be the new slime.
Actually this site has some useful information
http://robbie.host22.com/
27 Mar 14
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper Knobone does not enter into a rational argument with zombies, the little caravans wheels are fine, it trundles on gently into the twilight.
I'll tip my hat to your creativity, you obviously have a bit too much time on your hands. We always know though when your wheels have come off, the name calling begins. Drool appears to be the new slime.
27 Mar 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou've spent the best part of 54 pages on this thread arguing, yet when your arguments end up floundering on the floor like some sort of beached whale you start with the name calling and pretend like you don't care. I can see right through you, because we've been doing this long enough. You follow the same predictable script every time.
one does not enter into a rational argument with zombies, the little caravans wheels are fine, it trundles on gently into the twilight.
27 Mar 14
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper Knobwow thats where you are totally wrong, I really don't care about your self proclaimed victory, its hollow as far as I am concerned, in fact I don't think you have proven a single thing and my arguments are as siound as the day they were formed. As for calling you names, I have always had the habit of being creative with my adversaries names so you have not a jot of complaining to do about anything and I trundle along without a care in the world.
You've spent the best part of 54 pages on this thread arguing, yet when your arguments end up floundering on the floor like some sort of beached whale you start with the name calling and pretend like you don't care. I can see right through you, because we've been doing this long enough. You follow the same predictable script every time.
27 Mar 14
Originally posted by SwissGambitSome posters start out at "impasse" as the default position and have no intention of ever modifying that or of conceding even the minutest of 'terminological inexactitudes'. Not only is there no point in continuing; there is no point in even engaging with them. If no one were to reply to such posters, their dross might eventually disappear (or move to some other forum).
Sometimes you reach an impasse; not everyone wants to continue after that.
27 Mar 14
Originally posted by Proper KnobLies are not lies when a JW tells them, they are "mistakes".
Never sent any messages to the moderator? That's odd because this is your verbatim quote from that thread -
I don't know but I did contact the moderator and we'll see. Maybe you guys don't get the concept of what a PM is? You know "Private message"?
http://www.chessatwork.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=150191&page=11
27 Mar 14
Originally posted by Nick BourbakiThe word is "dogmatic". For such people, there is nothing to debate and nothing to be gained by any new (profane) knowledge. For them, all questions have already been answered, all genuine knowledge is old (sacred) knowledge, universally valid for all people and for all time. The only issue which remains is to propagate the answers and the old knowledge. Such people tend to view an open forum such as this as a place to propagate their dogma, not as a place to enrich their knowledge.
... To me, though, a form of human spirituality that creates an imperative [b]not to gain or weigh or respond to new knowledge, and instead try to isolate oneself from it, is paradoxical or maybe even dysfunctional [or maybe some other word that is on the tip of my typing fingers but I can't quite locate at this very moment ~ paradoxical and dysfunctional are maybe not be exactly what I am getting at].[/b]
For those who hold that truth is a process of experience and experiment and refinement, for those who hold that new knowledge can change our assessment of what we once we thought we knew to be true, for those who hold that knowledge is discovered through reasoning, there can be little or no common ground with those who hold that truth is a fait accompli and known by revelation.
Anyone who expects to persuade dogmatists to budge an inch from their dogmatic position is starting from different presuppositions and is bound to be frustrated by the lack of any movement. Genuine debate is scarcely possible under such radically different sets of presuppositions and tends to reduce to re-statements of position with increasing vehemence.
It is as though two entirely different groups of people were invited to a hotel banquet: one group are professional chefs and are interested in the process of preparing the meal, whereas the other group just sees the finished meal on the table and has no interest in how it was prepared. And now they try to have a 'debate' ... about soup!
27 Mar 14
Originally posted by moonbusDebates rarely change the opponent's mind, dogmatic or otherwise. But the struggle can be useful, both for the participants and the audience.
The word is "dogmatic". For such people, there is nothing to debate and nothing to be gained by any new (profane) knowledge. For them, all questions have already been answered, all genuine knowledge is old (sacred) knowledge, universally valid for all people and for all time. The only issue which remains is to propagate the answers and the old knowledge. Suc ...[text shortened]... and has no interest in how it was prepared. And now they try to have a 'debate' ... about soup!