harvey19 Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 My bold. What am I expected to do.. agree with you both and move on? You can only agree with me surely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwhine Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 Where abouts on Brook Hill is the University Arms ? Did it used to be called Club ??? Club 197. (The address is 197 Brook Hill, Sheffield S3 7HG.) On the corner of Favell Road. Just look for the organiser that looks like Brad Pitt. ...and ask him who I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwhine Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 Talking of spelling why do you spell Jesus as Jeebus and Bible as Babble ? I don't. That would be jeebus and babble. Well, until anybody proves that the jeebus story is anything other than a myth, I'll continue to give the concept the lack of respect it deserves. And the holey bible is wholely babble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwhine Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 Do you suffer from selective memory? Not that I know of. But even if I did, my posts are still there to look back at. I'm well aware of what you said, and what was meant. Yet you insist on presenting a misconstrued version. I was wrong to think that you lack comprehension. I apologise. Therefore, you are, instead, wilfully dishonest. I have already made you aware of this, so what's with the wordplay?. No wordplay on my part. I stand by all my posts verbatim. Shall I tell you what I find strange?.. I find it strange that after stating several times that teachers have "authority", and it is this "authority" that you believe makes "being forced" to sing hymns at a church wedding a completely different matter to "being forced" to sing hymns in school, simply because vicar's do not have any "authority" over their guests, whereas teachers do have "authority" over their pupils. Correct.(See below.) You later refute my implication that 'you appear to be suggesting that "vicar's" have less authority than teachers to force hymn singing. Correct.(See below.) You refute this dispite your earlier claim that the two situations are completely different matters due to vicar's having no "authority" over their guests.Correct.(See below.) (My red.) A vicar has no authority whatsoever over a wedding guest. A teacher has some authority over a schoolchild. Neither have authority to threaten sanctions for non-compliance in singing of hymns. You then go on to say that niether the teacher nor the vicar have the "authority" to force someone to sing hymns, despite previously claiming this is all about "authority":confused: Why confused? How can this be all about "authority", if niether have the "authority"? To say that neither have authority in a specific instance (...forced hymn singing...) is not equal to (...=/=...) saying that neither have any authority whatsoever How can "authority" make the two situations completely different matters, if niether have the "authority"? .. what you're saying doesn't make any sense. (My bold.) ...yet you claim, 'I'm well aware of what you said, and what was meant.' No wonder you're confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwhine Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 'Jeebus', 'babble', 'catherlic', 'poap', 'Xtian'. As far as I can tell it's a rather childlike attempt to illustrate the contempt some posters hold other's faith in; similar I guess to the useage of 'Bliar', Nu Labore etc. I think it makes those that use them look infantile. (My bold.) Believing in the tooth fairy, Santa, etc. is infantile. Some people grow out of ridiculous beliefs. Sadly, some don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 (My bold.) Believing in the tooth fairy, Santa, etc. is infantile. Some people grow out of ridiculous beliefs. Sadly, some don't. But you still refer to the tooth fairy and Santa by their proper names. Whether one blieves or not I do not think ridicule is necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwhine Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 But you still refer to the tooth fairy and Santa by their proper names. 'Their proper names'! :oYou don't think they're real do you? Whether one blieves or not I do not think ridicule is necessary. :huh:Then don't ridicule them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 'Their proper names'! :oYou don't think they're real do you? This could take the thread in a completely different direction. Who will Danot agree with? :huh:Then don't ridicule them. I wa referring to Jesus and the Bible !!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 Not that I know of. But even if I did, my posts are still there to look back at.Yes, I have taken the liberty of looking at them. Originally posted by redwhine Yet you insist on presenting a misconstrued version. I was wrong to think that you lack comprehension. I apologise. Therefore, you are, instead, wilfully dishonest. Iv'e not misconstued anything. Let me assure you that nothing you have said has been taken and used out of context. Originally posted by redwhine No wordplay on my part. I stand by all my posts verbatim. As I stand by mine. Originally posted by redwhine (My red.) A vicar has no authority whatsoever over a wedding guest. A teacher has some authority over a schoolchild. Neither have authority to threaten sanctions for non-compliance in singing of hymns. Why confused? My confusion is due to your claims about "authority". We agree that teachers do not have the authority to force a pupil to sing hymns. We aslo agree that vicars do not have the authority to force wedding guests to sing hymns. Yet you claim that these are two completely different matters due to authority. Originally posted by redwhine To say that neither have authority in a specific instance (...forced hymn singing...) is not equal to (...=/=...) saying that neither have any authority whatsoever The authority that a teacher may have over children under their supervision has no relevence to the matter in hand. The teachers authority doesn't play any part in it, that's why s/he was wrong for doing it. Originally posted by redwhine (My bold.) ...yet you claim, 'I'm well aware of what you said, and what was meant.' No wonder you're confused. More wordplay! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwhine Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 The authority that a teacher may have over children under their supervision has no relevence to the matter in hand. It does when you compare a situation where someone has no authority with a situation where someone has some authority. The teachers authority doesn't play any part in it, that's why s/he was wrong for doing it. i.e. they overstepped their authority as opposed to the vicar who has no authority to overstep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.