Hello
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-10-2013, 07:42 AM
RE: Hello
(03-10-2013 07:40 AM)absols Wrote:  i would b happy to talk with police about that i am a lawyer in case u dont know

irrelevant
There are no exceptions for threats (or lawyers)

Buh bye.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist & Levitating Yogi
Sent by Jebus to put the stud back in Bible Study.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2013, 07:45 AM
RE: Hello
fuck u with ur threats piece of shit

as if i care for what u obviously exhibit never typing a word but for what it gets
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2013, 07:47 AM
RE: Hello
(03-10-2013 07:45 AM)absols Wrote:  fuck u with ur threats piece of shit

as if i care for what u obviously exhibit never typing a word but for what it gets

enjoy your last few minutes on TTA

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist & Levitating Yogi
Sent by Jebus to put the stud back in Bible Study.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2013, 07:48 AM
RE: Hello
enjoy ur eternal hours with ur shit
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2013, 07:51 AM
RE: Hello
(03-10-2013 07:26 AM)Chippy Wrote:  The narrative that you are spinning is divorced from the facts. Bucky Balls initiated the hostility. Rather than just argue his case he threw in some needless attempts at insults; I merely responded in kind. Go and read my posts from the beginning.

The hostility began in the nature of god thread. It was initiated by the revisionist Chirpy.

(01-10-2013 11:21 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(01-10-2013 10:41 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Bullshit.
Catholic Theology (their Catechism) clearly states their god created the angles, and names their orders.
They say their god created ALL the angels, and that Satan is a fallen angel.

Yes, according to all of the mainline denominations of Christianity God created the angels. I know that. The point which you are doing your best to avoid to score some cheap point is that Satan is what an angel became. The supposed nature of Satan is not intrinsic to angelic beings (else they would all be Satanic). Satan is a deviant angel, a so-called "fallen angel". Satan's originary state is angelic--because he is an angel. Being possessed of some sort of contra-causal free-will he became evil, he was not created that way. Thus the myth avoids the misdirected charge that God created Satan. God created the angel that became evil. The myth is predicated on a parent-child relationship. The metaphor is that the parent(s) bears and raises a good child but it becomes evil but we can't blame the parent(s) because they did all they could to raise a good child. That is the archetypyal core of the myth. It works as an archetype because it was created in a prescientific age so it was taken for granted that if a child was reared well the parents are blameless for its crimes as an adult. That is the "logic" of Satan as a fallen angel and the nonculpability of God. So saying "oh but god created Satan" misses the point completely.

A "cheap point" is a point that is made pointing out an error, apparently.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist & Levitating Yogi
Sent by Jebus to put the stud back in Bible Study.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2013, 07:52 AM
RE: Hello
(03-10-2013 07:40 AM)absols Wrote:  i would b happy to talk with police about that i am a lawyer in case u dont know

bringing things back to reality is what net needs somtimes getting lost in meaning to replace reality with another

OK Legal Eagle, you should then be able to get your head around the fact that you're posting on a website that has conditions for participants. Threats or veiled threats...play semantics all you want.Drinking Beverage

" Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."
David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2013, 08:09 AM
RE: Hello
(03-10-2013 06:33 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No reply ... just a save.
That is a threat.

It is a threat but it doesn't bother me. He is clearly a disturbed and disordered individual and this is just the end result of giving him a progressively longer leash. From my experience of paranoid schizophrenics I am fairly confident that he is one.

You seem to constitute the head of the conga line of cuntasses that appear in my rep details. So I've got an array of village atheists calling me a cunt because I dared to challenge you and to criticise the Great Dawkins and I have a psychotic threatening to kill me and this has been spun into a fictive narrative where I am victimising and bullying. I can't express how unperturbed and unsurprised I am. I really couldn't give a shits worth of care what your conga line or absols posts. Absols is emblematic of you and your conga line; you should adopt him as your mascot/standard bearer. Absol's literal shitslinging can serve as a metaphor for your figurative shitslinging. Shit is the standard of your argumentation and I still think you are a huge tool despite the size of your circle jerk/conga line; your circle jerking peers actually confirm that you are a tool and an intellectual coward: "Oh poor me I'm butthurt, come and rub salve into my red raw precious anus and then tell Chippy he's a cunt and that will help ease my butthurt and then we can jerk each other off while we tell each other we're smart super atheists".

Fuck you and absols.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2013, 08:15 AM
Brick RE: Hello
(03-10-2013 07:26 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(03-10-2013 05:30 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  Who is calling who pretentious? You came here to stir shit up, which in and of itself is a mildly amusing sidetrack from the normal humdrum, but I see no reason to be such an aggressive cunt about it.

The narrative that you are spinning is divorced from the facts. Bucky Balls initiated the hostility. Rather than just argue his case he threw in some needless attempts at insults; I merely responded in kind. Go and read my posts from the beginning.

So what you are suggesting is that I should just sit back and offer no response to the name calling and that would make me more virtuous; and your concept of virtue is important to me and that I should work towards its cultivation such that I will not be "an aggressive cunt"? Why? What is the significance of your concept of virtue to me?

Also, "such an aggressive cunt"? So is it the quantum of my aggressive cuntedness that is not conguent with your concept of virtue rather than aggressive cuntedness per se? What measure of aggressive cuntedness is appropriate to your conception of virtue?

Quote:Don't like Dawkins? Fine. I'm not that keen on him either. Don't agree with anyone? Fine.

Oh but no, criticising Dawkins is a vice according to others, so that isn't fine.

Quote:But by coming on here and over analyzing everything about a particular person in order to attempt to belittle or degrade someone is just a cunt move that has absolutely nothing to do with any argument that you have postulated.

Poor Bucky Balls he's so demure and helpless. So goes the bullshit narrative. Read my posts and see who initiated the "cunt move".

Quote:I honestly pity you.

And the significance of that is what? Your post appears to be predicated on the idea that my life has culminated in my encounter with you. That I've been waiting to receive a conception of virtue from some person on an obscure forum that calls himself "Dark Light" and I've been waiting to hear about your emoting. That is the only way that I can make sense of your post.

Why do you think that you are important to me? You haven't provided anything that even remotely resembles an argument or even a factual account of what has transpired but you seem to think that your naked opinion has some special significance to me.

Quote:You enjoy attempting to cyberbully strangers,

No I just call a spade a spade and my treatment of others is principled and hence consistent. I've apparently violated tribal taboo by scrutinising the facts and arguments of atheists as well as theists when I should be only dumping shit on theists. That's the nub of the problem.

The web is overloaded with regular bullshit and Frankfurtian bullshit; if I can shovel a small amount of shit then that will help in a small way. It's burdensome rather than enjoyable most of the time. It is satisfying only in the way that cleaning up cat vomit is "satisfying"--the floor is cleaned and sanitised but it would have been better if there were no cat vomit to begin with. So you are wrong again.

I don't understand the significance of "strangers". You can make anything sound questionable by appending "with strangers" to it, e.g. "you enjoy discussing religion with strangers", "you enjoy playing online games with strangers". So if I enjoyed attempting to cyberbully acquaintances would that be more virtuous?

Quote:something tells me you wouldn't be nearly as adversarial in person.

You are telling yourself that; your presumptions are telling you that and I suppose that aspect of your subjectivity should also be significant to me?

I'm actually quite comabative in person though I have mellowed somewhat with age and loss of lean body mass. So your "something" is wrong. I shared that just for the purpose of contradicting you.

Quote:Alright, I chimed in. Go ahead, let's hear how ironic, hip and condescending my profile makes me. Please take note of my contact info too. I'm sure you will cum all over the place on that one.

I haven't looked at your profile nor even had a close look at your avatar sig etc. Again why do you think that you are of significance to me? Or do you think that everyone values your conception of virtue and wants to know what your are feeling and thinking?

Why would I care about your contact info? Your post is very self-referential. Do I need to comment on your profile?

Judging from this post your prose is insipid, you appear to be overly self-involved and you try to pass off exposition of your phenomonology as substantive content. You don't appear to have any concern with factuality or with arguing a case. You present as if you have direct access to truth and you need only communicate that "truth"--i.e. your subjective experience--and that would be sufficient. Re-read your own post and try to do so in a detached manner.

You didn't disappoint, exactly what I had anticipated. Yes, 'such' is meant to be quantitative in this context. Sorry if I wasn't clear, 'stranger' is provided because, as I stated, I don't think you'd be so happy to be so aggressive toward people who you knew because there would be repercussions from that act that might have more tangible consequences. I made no case to be argued, I just called you out for your hostility and brashness. Even if you think thank BB was provoking you (I don't) it didn't justify you being such a cunt in turn.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2013, 08:21 AM
RE: Hello
(03-10-2013 08:09 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(03-10-2013 06:33 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No reply ... just a save.
That is a threat.

It is a threat but it doesn't bother me. He is clearly a disturbed and disordered individual and this is just the end result of giving him a progressively longer leash. From my experience of paranoid schizophrenics I am fairly confident that he is one.

You seem to constitute the head of the conga line of cuntasses that appear in my rep details. So I've got an array of village atheists calling me a cunt because I dared to challenge you and to criticise the Great Dawkins and I have a psychotic threatening to kill me and this has been spun into a fictive narrative where I am victimising and bullying. I can't express how unperturbed and unsurprised I am. I really couldn't give a shits worth of care what your conga line or absols posts. Absols is emblematic of you and your conga line; you should adopt him as your mascot/standard bearer. Absol's literal shitslinging can serve as a metaphor for your figurative shitslinging. Shit is the standard of your argumentation and I still think you are a huge tool despite the size of your circle jerk/conga line; your circle jerking peers actually confirm that you are a tool and an intellectual coward: "Oh poor me I'm butthurt, come and rub salve into my red raw precious anus and then tell Chippy he's a cunt and that will help ease my butthurt and then we can jerk each other off while we tell each other we're smart super atheists".

Fuck you and absols.

"He" is a "her".
Your opinions, just as her's are, are irrelevant.
There is a "no tolerance" policy for threats.

Thanks for proving what you're all about.
Your arrogant pomposity was obvious in your first post.
You were right, your posts did speak for themselves.
The only place I have actually encountered jerks like yourself was in religion.
I thank my lucky stars I don't actually have to deal with the likes of people like you for real.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist & Levitating Yogi
Sent by Jebus to put the stud back in Bible Study.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2013, 08:24 AM (This post was last modified: 03-10-2013 08:30 AM by absols.)
RE: Hello
(03-10-2013 07:52 AM)KidCharlemagne1962 Wrote:  OK Legal Eagle, you should then be able to get your head around the fact that you're posting on a website that has conditions for participants. Threats or veiled threats...play semantics all you want.Drinking Beverage

it is those rules that are wrong

u should trust freedom bc it would b in truth

some mods here are responsable of the negative standard in content of the forum

like what bucky did say publically gave wings to that shit, proving my point too that shit keep repeating the same violation on persona rights at any time he is the one that must b sued, coming back insulting my obvious sanity who speaks about positive infinite ways

like i was a bit funny how i brought it up especially with who and about whom and from nowhere

meaning rules as the source of livings is imposing powerful shit livings positions

dont b afraid of truth, show that u hate it for what u r constantly makes more sense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: