I see those that bitch about my not posting an opinion on articles as someone who can't form their own opinion for themselves.
Again and again, "Discussion Forum", if they can't discuss it from their own perspective they have not business griping about the thread.
Just don't post.

Edit:
So funny, when I post my opinion I get all this whining like this thread and when I don't I get different whining "why didn't you post your opinion" LOL!
People just like to whine. It's beneath me.
If you like the topic and have an opinion on it, regardless of your stance on my opinion, post it and discuss it with others... don't like the thread or have an opinion, don't post... it is very simple.
Unless you are just looking for an opportunity to whine and bitch about something that has nothing to do with you... then you will make it something else, right?

So you copy a link right from CNN's home page and its up to everyone else to discuss it?
What do you get out of that?

Depends on the discussion.
Generally they are things that I see more than one way of looking at and want to see what others think about them, hence "Discussion Forum". Same as any discussion.
My opinion can change about anything if presented with a compelling enough argument.
This used to be a place for logical discussion instead of people freaking out like eight-year-olds the min you post something they don't like, much less disagree with them.

'Discussion Forum' is what you keep calling it.


It is my opinion that the old hats think of it more as an 'internet community'

this is an important distinction that you should take some time to reflect upon.

.... *reflected*... don't care.
I no longer talk about my personal life, people like you just use it to hurt others because that is who you are.

This line of shit might fly with the newbs, but I've actually read your posts, and know exactly how you respond when people try to discuss things with you. Flint nailed it here.

Coming from you that is hilarious!

hmmm...somehow that has a very familiar ring to it.

I really don't know what to say to you. It seems like you take everything the wrong way, then lash out defensively. I mean, what's the point of putting things out there for discussion if you just piss everyone off? If you are trying to educate and enlighten us on this important topic . . . it's not working.

I'm going to make another (I'm sure, futile) suggestion, with all due respect: Since you have posted threads on this general topic (religion, separation of church and state) in several different "discussion forums," i.e, Politics, Current Events, and Philosophy, would you consider a single thread in which you could post all your related news stories? Voila! Efficient, topical, and continuously updated.

he wouldnt even consider his very own forum. got all twisted up when i suggested that too.

I'd made that suggestion on page one, but it made him cry.

oh well. just a suggestion, anyway.

That was my opinion of your post, another whine, since you could not tell.

If I post a topic and someone gets pissed off about it, it is their own doing, not mine.
Once a topic is posted it belongs to the entire community, not one person, orig poster or not.... as seen by the inability for most here to stay on-topic in any way at all, ever.

I stated earlier why each thread is it's own, you may want to go back and read it instead of tail-posting.

I'll tail post (whatever that is) When I clicked on "New Posts" this am The last post in virtually every thread was yours, rkzenrage. How is it possible to have the same opinion on every single thread or issue? Then you go and accuse others as stalking you when you have posted in almost every thread on the board? I can't get away from you in any thread.

Talk about litter? You are posting the same crap everywhere! Hateful and negative everywhere and about everything. Whats the last positive uplifting thing you've posted about? Seriously, Think about it.
And your blah, blah, "its not my fault what you think or read into my posts" cop-out is a lame rebuttal to several very good suggestions. Just create your own thread, post all your stuff there and we'll come visit you from time to time - promise. mmmkay? We'll all do our part to clean up the basement - err Cellar.

CLASSIC YOU STALKER WHY DO YOU FOLLOW ME ITS SO IMMATURE. YOU ARE AN IDIOT AND THIS IS BENEATH ME.

nanny nanny boo boo - I'm still here stalkinz youz

Hi Classic!
You've arrived with such a blitz of posts, I wonder if you got formally welcomed. Just in case:

:welcome:

Welcome Classic.
And I quite liked your post #75. Said it all pretty clearly I thought.

i could be completely offbase, but i classic feels like a very high quality sock puppet. posts just seem very familiar. but if not - Wlcome to the cellar. don't feed the wolf, she bites sometimes. Who is going to administer the test now that Lumberjim is gone?

A-HA! "i, classic..."? Freudian slip, much? :p

get lumborjim back out

is that a freudian slip? i thought a freudian slit was when you said what was really on your mind instead of what you meant to sex.

Eh, maybe wrong phrase. You know what they say "a freudian slip is meaning one thing but slaying your mother."

What is the phrase I want, meaning he didn't mean to slip in the "i" thereby exposing his puppetness in all its socky glory?

well like Isaid in another thread, I have been a lurker for a long time. So I am reeally not a newbie - thanks for the welcome though. Sock puppet? No I am certainly not one, butI have long wondered about tw and rk.... just throwin it out there

Welcome, classicman! :)

keep posting crap like that and I'll start wondering if you are one of my sock puppets.

Here you go, you worthless whiny little cunt.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...TailPoster.jpg

LOL!

eta:

**@ lookout123, because apparently there was another post made between the time I read his and I posted mine.

This kind of posting is absolutely inexcusable imo, and pathetic to boot. What happened to the reasoned, emotionless discussion you so often espouse?

Just an observation.
The sock set the tone when it posted to me like that the first time.
Since it did that it stated clearly that that is how it wants to communicate, I simply complied.

That's the price of your integrity then? If someone else('s sock puppet) does it first, anything goes?
:headshake

Sorry rkzenrage - I didn't realize you had feelings that could be hurt. From my observations, both the tone set by your multitude of negative posts and simplistic "religion bad" one trick pony posting, I figured thats how one should respond to you. You set the tone not I.

Integrity? Using the tone one wants to use does nothing to my integrity. It is, in fact, doing what they want and a favor for them.
When someone chooses to change the tone of a conversation they are clearly stating "this is how I want you to communicate to me" as shown by psychologists many times. Abusive people want to be abused... so you should abuse them, it is doing them a favor.
If one is polite to me, I am the same to them.
It is just a sock anyway, not a real person.

Oh and if anything I'd be a "big dick" not a "little cunt".
Just saying, I'm sure you want to be accurate. Ya know, facts and all...

There is nothing you could do to cause me to have an emotion other than mirth sock.

See there is something we can agree on - you are devoid of emotion. Its a start at least.

The way I see it... if you eschew certain behaviors, claim over and over again that those behaviors are "beneath you" etc., then "he started it!!!" is a bullshit excuse that does in fact speak to your integrity.
Either you believe those behaviors to be wrong (and therefore do not engage in them), or you do not. It's as simple as that and anyone who disagrees is a moron...

Well said jinx... I don't think it is wrong, but it is beneath me.

So what you are saying is that you have pretty low standards and/or morals? I'm not sure I understand.

Not surprising.
Communicating like (& with really) you is beneath me.

but what is the opposite of 'above me'?

LOL... you have been on lately.

I could tell. I made a suggestion, and you were upset by it. Since you do not convey emotions in your posts, you helped me to see how sad you were by displaying a photo of a crying baby. I thank you for that.

If I can help you to see, by showing a photo, that my suggestion was terrific, please let me know and maybe I will oblige you.

sorry...but....lol!!!

I welcomed him when he made his initial post in the Landmark Thread.

Actually, knowing someone has been watching all this time and knows all about us but we know nothing about him is a little bit freaky. Kind of like a 'stalker'. ;)

Sorry about going back to this but it seems like this went off-topic a while ago....

Just focusing on this one comment, I don't see how saying "people who believe in creationism shouldn't hold office" is an attack on theists.

If everyone who believed in God didn't believe in evolution, your point would stand but many people that do believe in God also believe in evolution so there does not necessarily have to be a link between the two.

I, for one, would never vote for someone who does not believe in evolution into office. This is not because I don't like religious people or do not trust them, just that I see creationism as a logical flaw (not the exact word I'm looking for but eh) because it requires a belief that is not supported by any evidence.

All evidence about how humans came into existence goes to evolution and none of it supports creationism. As I said before, this not only means that these people believe in something that has zero empirical evidence backing it but it also means that they put God in front of science. That would most likely mean that they will put God and their personal religious beliefs in front of politics, which is something I would personally like to avoid being secular. If there is tremendous support of something that goes against someone's religious belief, I would like a politician that would side with the evidence and support instead of something with zero proof.

This is more of a stretch but it also deals with flaws in logic. I would not like a president who, in lack of evidence, firmly believes that a country has WMDs and supports Al Qeada and will be willing to risk the lives and security of millions to act out on that belief. I am not saying that the decision to attack that country has anything to do with religion or creationism, but that someone who has previously put faith in front of evidence will probably be more likely to do it in the future.


For the record, I do not believe that most politicians have politics that favor the greater good as their first priority anyways but it is my personal preference to not throw religion in the mix.

Well, as I mentioned in a later post, it's your choice to vote for whoever you choose regardless of what anyone else thinks about what someone who holds office is allowed to (or should) believe.

That's what democracy is all about.

Nope. You can only choose based on what I think. Me. Dammit. Me. :p

Listen mate, in case you haven't got the picture yet, it's all about me.

*hides knife behind back, outreaches hand with big grin*

Ok, we can share the title.

ok, I'm not stupid enough (close though) to fall for that one! ;)

Wait a minute..... you do know there is no separation of church and state in the UK? That here is a national religion there?




....What am I thinking, of course you know that -from the days when you used to work in British Government

I think what you are defining here is faith, and I think having faith can be a good thing.

Yes I am talking about faith, but even though you say it can be a good thing, which I won't disagree with, it can be very deadly when someone with as much power as the president uses it.

I know this isn't the reason for the Iraqi invasion but just imagine how many lives would have been saved and how much less fucked up the Middle East would be if George Bush Jr. didn't attack Iraq based on faith but held back because he didn't have any evidence of WMDs? You cannot avoid making assumptions altogether as president but when faith is put ahead of evidence, people will be unnecessarily hurt, which I am trying to avoid.

I just had a thought that hadn't occurred to me before. I wonder if Bush's remarks about divine guidance in attacking Iraq, were to cut off further questioning by the press, into reasons he didn't want to divulge?

more likely it was a preemptive move to ensure that members of some of the large christian organizations were firmly on his side.

SHEEP: Well, if God told Mr Bush that Iraq is where we have to go, then we must follow even if we don't understand.

sadly enough a lot of the folks that follow some of the well known "christian leaders" don't question anything if the leadership says they heard from god. in that way they are very similar to some of the large unions. the leadership may be giving them the unlubed shaft, but it would be "wrong" to not follow the leader.

i've said it before, i don't think W is stupid. I think he has cultivated that image to endear him to one group and confuse another. you may not like where he has/is taking us, but i think he is fairly shrewd in getting what he wants.

I think that's an article of faith.

Making not requiring justification from those in authority (or a book purporting to be an authority) into a virtue strikes me as pretty manipulative. It's not limited to religious leaders, of course. Unquestioning obedience is a common "virtue" of those surrounding... strong, shall we say... leaders.

I specifically said CAN, not always is.
piercehawkeye45 - good points
Happy Monkey - Hmmm scary, but true.

Frankly, I couldn't give a damn WHAT my politicians believe. What I care about is how they vote, and their policies. You can be 7th tier Scientologist for all I care, just don't let your crazy into the law books or policy.

I know this will make a lot of people angry/judgemental at/of me, but I think "faith" is a bad thing. "Faith" means "I will hold this belief in the contradiction to all the evidence against it." It makes no sense, and it doesn't make someone strong. Just like ignoring all contrary evidence in ANY forum, it is a stubbornness.

We all get on the cases of people who won't change their arguments, people who won't listen to astounding evidence. Yet somehow if it's being stubborn for God it makes it something to be admired.

There are lots of forms of faith that do not contradict any known evidence; rather they focus on the things we can't know.