On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 12:07:00 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
Your response is so typical and why you're the village idiot/troll.
He asked a simple question, one that YOU raised and asked for
an answer. Period. Instead it's off to the poor little old me,
I asked a simple question about evidence someone would accept that God
exists. IF he/you/anyone didn't like the question, objected to the
question, or didn't like the topic of discussion, NO ONE forced
you/him/they into participating or responding. They could have just, oh,
It's OBVIOUS Don had an agenda when he jumped into the discussion:
I asked him WHY he joined in a discussion that he really didn't like
the topic, and this is what he 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! "
He already had an attitude that he was going to put me in MY place with
his uber skills and powers of deduction, yet, HE is the one who flaked
out over the discussion.
He's obviously angry at anyone who would dare to broach the subject in
his hemisphere. How dare I disrespect his abilities and challenge him
on a subject his hates, and I somehow forced him to participate and
respond, in addition, to disrespecting his approach to discussion and
debate by not doing exactly what he told me to do when he told me to do it.
Gee ... I'm a BAAAADDDDD person! </sarcasm>
If he doesn't like how I discuss a topic, let him challenge me instead
of whining to other people about it.
answered many times. Instead of accepting that the question was
answered, you just added more inane questions and idiotic qualifiers to
keep from backing up your claim.
The fact is you don't discuss. You make claims, you ask idiotic
questions, but you most assuredly don't discuss. Whenever you are
challenged, by anyone, the same scenario plays out.
On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 2:52:17 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
And I immediately gave you a direct, simple, reasonable answer:
"Evidence that a court would accept."
You ignored that, then lied and said no one had answered your question.
Everyone saw and understood the answer.
Next you, claimed that I was trying to "bait you" with that answer.
Really? Good grief. Those are examples why people here don't
IF he/you/anyone didn't like the question, objected to the
That's what you do. You start some discussion, some argument, then
you just stop responding. "No one gave an answer". "You're answer
is trying to bait me", so instead of addressing it, I'll just lie and
talk in circles.
There we go. The rest of us see it as Don having an OPINION on the
discussion that YOU started.
He posted that after he was fed up with you and your troll tactics.
I saw the same behavior in many discussion when you first arrived here.
That's why I came to the conclusion you're the village idiot/troll.
Don't like that characterization? Tough.
And there you go again. So typical. He did challenge you. SeaNymph
has too. They've asked you to give us examples of your evidence.
Yet, here you are, pretending that never happened. THAT is why you
have no respect.
Most people would respond with an actual example of what they would
accept as evidence, like, "I'd accept a river flowing backwards as
evidence a God exists", or "I'd accept confirmation that X exists in
A court of law deals with laws, and since there are no laws to reference
evidence pertaining to God in a court of law, as far as I know, I would
never be able to list a comparable example that a court of law would
accept into evidence as to the existence of God.
You knew your response was bait that would lead to a dead end.
On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 2:17:35 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
BS. The answer was that the same *standards of evidence* that a court
would accept. It doesn't have to be a case about god. Is that so hard
to understand? Everyone else here got it, only poor little old you doesn't.
You act as if every time a case is heard on a different subject,
the courts have to start all over again as to what kind of evidence is
allowable. Are you so daft that you really have no idea what kind of
evidence a court typically accepts?
There you go again, with the "bait" BS. Poor little you.
| There should be exactly one post in response to this -- as it
| is intended solely for muggles and she should be able to
| answer it
Then write to her privately. This is a home
repair group. The idea is that what you post should
be of interest to people who've come here to discuss
home repair. Otherwise, you're the "troll".
Her email address changes every week.
I have no desire to create a disposable address just for
Others have expressed an interest in her response to that
same question (reread the thread).
The topic has been marked OT since its inception (so, YOUR
comment suggests you haven't noted that distinction).
The point of my statement was that SHE should be able to
answer it -- without prevaricating, spinning, misdirecting,
etc. It was a simple enough question -- based on a statement
that *she* VOLUNTEERED.
Again, she just wants to skulk away from the issue instead
of addressing it. While everyone else showed HER the respect
of addressing HER questions.
(In her twisted mind, holding her feet to the fire is
"disrespectful", "hateful", etc.)
My email address is fake - has always been fake - and will continue to
be fake just like many people use a fake email address.
I change it for the fun of it - since it IS fake - why not? I'm not
hurting anyone, and if anyone is confused by it or why I've done it,
I've already explained WHY I do it. That should be good enough.
If you have a problem with me, why not talk TO me about it vs.
complaining to everyone else that you have a problem with me?
Logically, you can't solve a problem you have with me by talking to
other people ABOUT me. If you don't care to interact with me any more,
I don't care. Block me, but if you have a problem with me and just keep
whining about it instead of trying to solve the problem or work out the
issue WITH me, that's not a very respectable way of dealing with people,
You've already shown yourself to BE disrespectful and hateful.
The answer to your question is simple, and has been answered, again,
numerous times. It's virtually impossible to talk "to you", because you
won't respond to the actual issue. Everyone tried to talk to you and
got the same stupid questions.
| The topic has been marked OT since its inception (so, YOUR
| comment suggests you haven't noted that distinction).
OT means something indirectly related to
the topic of the group. Nonsense arguments
are not "OT". They're just nonsense. If you
want to argue about God you can find plenty
of takers in the philosophy group.
On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 4:59:19 PM UTC-5, Mayayana wrote:
And your reference for that would be? OT simply means off topic
and so marking it means that you can skip it if you like. If it's
of any interest to AHR, even indirectly, I would say it's not OT.
But even if those are, everything else that has no relation at
all is also clearly OT.
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.