(sigh) She still doesn't "get it".
Keeps trying to play the spin (I guess that question was OVER HER HEAD
considering how hard it seems for her to answer it).
She can also look back on my earlier comments (same thread and threads
in the past months) to see how "fair a shake" I gave her.
She wants to be a part of a discussion but only the parts that suit her!
Lump her in the category of folks who can't CONTRIBUTE to a discussion;
just want to drag it out ("Look at me! Look at me!").
"Nothing to see, here, folks. Move along."
Fair shake?? We don't agree. When the topic didn't go your way, you
You jumped into a discussion you didn't like to begin with having an
agenda that wasn't all that nice.
I asked you WHY you joined in a discussion that you really didn't like
the topic, and this is what you told me:
"I'm tired of all the holy rollers going unchallenged in their
attempts to impose *their* delusions on my life and those around me.
When you want to stick to your "clubhouse" (aka church/temple/etc.)
and recite your chants to yourself, that's fine. Just don't
leave the building! "
I am not the sum total of all your unchallenged holy rollers who have
ticked you off and irritated you, and I don't deserve your disdain,
mistreatment, or contemptuous comments.
Have you really paid attention to all the OT threads where dozens of
people discuss all sorts of topics you may not consider to be a
contribution you're interested in??
You're flaking out on the topic we were discussing has brought more
attention to you complaining about how I "disrespected" you in some way
by not following your lead in the discussion.
Another word wall that really doesn't address anything, other than your
opinion, which you are entitled to.
You made claims, you refused to back them up no matter who asked you to
do so. You fixated on one thing hoping everything else will fade away.
Doesn't work that way.
If you want respect, then show some. Stop trying to make people post
only in a manner you find acceptable. You know what they say, if you
can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Don decided he didn't like how the discussion was going, so he decided
he should begin disrespecting me. I stopped responding to his demands
within the discussion because he could not respond TO me in a respectful
He wants respect - I want respect. My guess is he's used to demanding
and getting his way, and if he doesn't he treats that person with disdain.
On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 2:26:33 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
Actually, he posted a simple, civil, direct question, which was a great
opportunity for you to respond directly to. Instead, it's the poor little
me, I'm the victim, everyone attacks me, etc.
I stopped responding to his demands
And excuse will do for a troll. Don's right, you only respond to the
parts that you like, that are favorable to you.
I have respect for Don and most of the others here. You? No, because
of what you just demonstrated.
On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 3:26:13 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
BS. I don't respect jerks like you who start some big discussion,
then just flat out refuse to answer simple questions that go to the
heart of the discussion, instead start spinning, talking in circles
and then top it off by playing the victim card.
On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 2:26:33 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
He only did that when you started lying, eg "No one answered my question
about what kind of proof would be acceptable" and refused to answer simple,
direct questions that go to the heart of the discussion that YOU started.
You started lying and stopped responding because it's what you do,
it's what trolls do. And curious how we have some of the friends
you've accumulated over the years showing up here, saying how you've
done the same thing in other groups, changing nyms, etc. No one else
here has that proble
Well yes they did, it was answered immediately. Your problem with the
answer seems to be that you then tried to make it into something it
wasn't, like something being tried in a court of law. You were the only
person who kept bringing that up, and in spite of several people
explaining it, you just muggled on your merry way.
Let's simplify. Of course, I provide this for others because Muggles
won't face me directly <g>
You never actually asked a question, what you did was say, "I suppose it
depends on what you'll accept as "evidence".
That is immediately followed by a response to your statement:"What a
court would accept would be a good place to start." There is no mention
of hearing this discussion in a court of law, there is no indication
that other evidence might not be acceptable, just a simple statement
following your statement.
Then your spin started with: " Who would you say is qualified to rule on
in a court of law as to whether or not there is evidence that God exists?"
There was never any mention of taking this into a court of law, other
than by you. IOW, if the evidence provided would be considered
acceptable in a court of law, it's probably evidence that most folks
would accept. Nothing about having the discussion heard in a court,
nothing indicating that other evidence might not be acceptable.
Then you go completely off the reservation with this, which is peppered
with unfounded assumptions that have no basis in actual fact. It's
clearly your opinion, and nothing more.
"I could provide evidence that I believe is sufficient to prove God
exists, then you could/would counter with "I don't accept THAT as
legitimate evidence", so I'm skipping that song-n-dance/2-step part of
the discussion, and proceeding directly to "go" and asking for what you
*would* accept as "evidence" that God exists."
Your statement makes no sense because this came after your statement had
been made and an answered provided.
So, simply provide your "evidence" and let the chips fall where they
may. Seems really straightforward to me.
Really SIMPLE QUESTION. How many thousands of keystrokes will she
devote to NOT answering it?
She's just a whining troll. When she's taken to task (after
repeated attempts to cajole the answer out of her) she cries
like someone has wronged her.
She would be hilarious to see on a witness stand:
"The witness will answer the question"
"But he didn't ask me nicely!"
"The witness will answer the question or be held in contempt"
"See? You're all out to GET ME!"
"Bailiff, please escort the witness to a holding cell where
she will remain until she is willing to comply with the terms
of this court..."
I wonder if crying was her way of getting mommy and daddy
to accede to her wishes?
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.