Fundamentalist overload

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Yeah, but it is going to take a long time to get the masses that do embrace theistic religion to that state, assuming you can get them there at all.

Well, I suppose we can let one violation of Poes' law pass... it was obviously an oversight and not intentional. Mine was intentional, but Poes' law assumes tone is undecipherable without a "winky".

However... do you seriously think it's the atheists job to get the masses to see things your way and agree with you? If that is the case then no winky is needed.

Originally posted by Agerg
😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀
😀 [b]THIS IS A PARODY 😀
😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀

Fixed the smiley box (the problem with your post is the exclamation mark). I bet you're one of those people that just throws their shopping onto the checkout belt without taking the time to line them up properly - so annoying![/b]

It's looks fine on my computer. I knew it would because I tested the smiley box in a message to myself. Your "fix" looks like some of those groceries fell off the checkout belt. But thanks anyway for fixing this (for yourself)... I wouldn't have known if you hadn't told me. 😵

Originally posted by twhitehead
You saw wrong. And the fact that I called you on your claim should have been a hint to go and check before repeating the claim.

[b]How could you not understand what "Maybe he read your report?" means?
Its not a meme I am familiar with and it didn't make any sense in context. Now that I know you are pretending that you still think you are correct, ...[text shortened]... you read, or are lying.
And I can certainly safely claim that I am more intelligent than you.[/b]

Why did you ignore CalJusts' message?
(page 4 of this thread)

It's okay if you want to ignore my question. I will attempt to offer an explanation as to why you might have ignored Caljusts' message.

Originally posted by CalJust

" ...without going back over all twhitehead' posts, I DO remember something along the lines of what LL accused him off.

But let's not speculate or "falsely misrepresent" - this matter can be cleared up very simply.

Do you, or do you not believe that atheists more intelligent and better educated in science than theists? "

I can immediately see two reasons why you might want to ignore this.

1) someone other than myself is making the same claim.
2) his question to you could be a trap. Take a good look at his question:

Do you, or do you not believe that atheists [are] more intelligent and better educated in science than theists?

The first thing I noticed was the missing [are]. Why is the [are] missing from his question? It could be a simple mistake. Or it could be because everything to the right of the implied [are] is from a direct quote. And of course a third option would be that it might have been a "mistake" that couldn't be avoided when he attempted to blend his question in with a partial quote.

If so, then if you answer 'No' to something you have already affirmed (because it's from an actual quote), and CalJust knows where to find it because he's already found it, and any of this comes to light because you denied it, then you will have no recourse but to offer a disingenuous apology... (an apology for what, getting caught in a lie?)

But don't worry, because all of this is contingent upon whether or not...

1) any or all of this is true, and if true...
2) you set this into motion by answering his question.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Why did you ignore CalJusts' message?
(page 4 of this thread)

It's okay if you want to ignore my question. I will attempt to offer an explanation as to why you might have ignored Caljusts' message.

Originally posted by CalJust

" ...without going back over all twhitehead' posts, I DO remember something along the lines of what LL accused hi ...[text shortened]... y or all of this is true, and if true...
2) you set this into motion by answering his question.

Fourth option:
CalJusts' question could be a direct quote of himself responding to twhitehead.

In any event I smell a trap, Poes' law or not.


note to CalJust: If he hasn't answered your question by now, he's not going to answer

Originally posted by lemon lime
Why did you ignore CalJusts' message?

The lengths some people will go to avoid admitting that they lied.
Its simple: prove your case or offer an apology. Claiming that Caljust has the secret information that would prove your case just doesn't cut it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The lengths some people will go to avoid admitting that they lied.

Here is a rather clear cut example of lemon lime going to extraordinary lengths to avoid admitting that he'd lied... Thread 160396 page 6 and then pages 10-14.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The lengths some people will go to avoid admitting that they lied.
Its simple: prove your case or offer an apology. Claiming that Caljust has the secret information that would prove your case just doesn't cut it.

Lemon Lime has repeatedly demonstrated in these forums that his word cannot be trusted.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Yeah, but it is going to take a long time to get the masses that do embrace theistic religion to that state, assuming you can get them there at all.

Your post that I initially replied to implied we did not have a way. Clearly we do have a way. The only difficulty is convincing them is it the way. But at least we should try. Your initial post seemed to suggest we should just give up because we have no solution. Now you are saying 'well it might take a while'. Not the same thing at all.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The lengths some people will go to avoid admitting that they lied.
Its simple: prove your case or offer an apology. Claiming that Caljust has the secret information that would prove your case just doesn't cut it.

For some reason I thought you valued reading comprehension, but maybe I was mistaken in thinking I've seen you criticize poor reading skills in others. One of us needs to clean his glasses*, or get new glasses**... or start wearing glasses***

* spectacles
** reading glasses
*** glasses for reading

Originally posted by divegeester
Lemon Lime has repeatedly demonstrated in these forums that his word cannot be trusted.

You can trust God's Word. 🙂

Originally posted by twhitehead
The lengths some people will go to avoid admitting that they lied.
Its simple: prove your case or offer an apology. Claiming that Caljust has the secret information that would prove your case just doesn't cut it.

Claiming that Caljust has the secret information that would prove your case just doesn't cut it.

You're not really helping yourself here, because pretending to not know the difference between a claim and speculation doesn't prove your case... feigning ignorance is counter productive, because it undercuts your argument.

All you have proven is that the claim might be true, because you've refused to acknowledge a second person making the same claim.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Not really too familiar with parody, are you?

Or is it maybe just no sense of humor?

Either way, I'm thinking you need to lighten up a little. You seem to be wound a little too tight.

haters gotta hate; taut touters gotta toot. 🙂

Do you not enjoy listening to the tautology of taut touter tooters? 😛

Originally posted by twhitehead
The lengths some people will go to avoid admitting that they lied.
Its simple: prove your case or offer an apology. Claiming that Caljust has the secret information that would prove your case just doesn't cut it.

FIX'D for benefit of the tone deaf in accordance with Poes' law

🙁🙁🙁🙁🙁🙁🙁🙁🙁🙁🙁🙁🙁
🙁 THIS IS NOT A PARODY 🙁
🙁🙁🙁🙁🙁🙁🙁🙁🙁🙁🙁🙁🙁

Claiming that Caljust has the secret information that would prove your case just doesn't cut it.

You're not really helping yourself here, because pretending to not know the difference between a claim and speculation doesn't prove your case... feigning ignorance is counter productive, because it undercuts your argument. All you have proven is that the claim might be true, because you've refused to acknowledge a second person making the same claim.

And you've also refused to acknowledge my question about this... why did you ignore (not respond to) CalJusts' message?

Originally posted by lemon lime
All you have proven is that the claim might be true, ....

I have done no such thing.
You lied, and everyone knows it. If you had actual evidence that I said what you claimed, you would have presented it. Hence, it is blatantly obvious that you have no such evidence and just made up the claim.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have done no such thing.
You lied, and everyone knows it. If you had actual evidence that I said what you claimed, you would have presented it. Hence, it is blatantly obvious that you have no such evidence and just made up the claim.

The lengths some people will go to avoid answering a question.

You and I both know that finding the threads where you made those claims would be like searching for a needle in a haystack. This is why I have simply asked you why you have chosen to ignore CalJusts' message. And the fact that you have been ignoring my question about CalJusts' message is also very telling... if you are not lying, then why be afraid to answer one simple question?

If you need to google what "needle in a haystack" means, I can wait for whatever answer (or non-answer) you might have to offer.