goggles Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Yes he is bad! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karis Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Please see where Rootsbooster started to pick a fight. Read 747 onwards. I wrote 727. It was Rootsbooster who started to provoke me with a sarcastic one liner in 728. If he said that, then why should I not start discussing the topic with him ? I responded to things he wrote. (Unbeknown to him then, both from everything up until this thread was dug back up in Sept, up to his responses to my post. If he doesn't like my post, he do not have to reply to it!) If he understood the subject of Christianity, and Satan blah blah. Then why the reason for this thread??? Is it not cos he does not understand the subject, or what ? Outrageously un-be-LIEVE-able. Try reading your post, oh #729 where you CLEARLY started with your usual behaviour. You attacked him with your condescending attitude. Roots hadn't done a thing at that point... See. You can't even reasonably look back over posts... Now, re-read those, digest, and then you can come back with some humility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted September 22, 2011 Author Share Posted September 22, 2011 <snipples....>Please see where Rootsbooster started to pick a fight. Read 747 onwards. I wrote 727. It was Rootsbooster who started to provoke me with a sarcastic one liner in 728. In post #727 there was nothing relevant to Chorba's post #726, which you pretended to respond to. Your post was a dig at me from where you left off on your Libdem/page 3 thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted September 22, 2011 Author Share Posted September 22, 2011 Yes he is bad! ...if ever there was an opposite posting style to Salsafan's, this is it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted September 22, 2011 Author Share Posted September 22, 2011 To be honest, you brought it back alive in 770, but then he went ahead and threw a wobbly on 773. LOL at wobbly on #773, it's simply a list of the things you made up. You percieve things so strangely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goggles Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 ...if ever there was an opposite posting style to Salsafan's, this is it! What you talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salsafan Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 I've worked it out: Satan is among us and working her magic on this very thread! The power of Chris compels you!!! The power of Chris compels you!!! Yeh, I have actually. If I am absolutely honest, I normally do not act this angrily, and gets provoked by others on the most mundane of subjects like "is satan really bad" ? I also figured out finally that he meant "Christ" when he wrote "Chris", after he explained his little story of Gordon and Sam and threw a wobbly cos I wrote more about the story and made more assumptions (based on an Ethics/Morality approach to figure out the meaning of the story). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality For the record, the concept of morality sums up my thinking process with regards to Philosophy, or Christianity. Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the sense that differentiates among intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong). A moral code is a system of morality (for example, according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code. Immorality is the active opposition to morality, while amorality is variously defined as an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any set of moral standards or principles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason - This certainly shows that any one of us can indeed interpret the Bible so differently, but I know that my simple view was just valid enough for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 What you talking about? Short and to the point (a veiled compliment). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salsafan Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 So you think it's OK for you to challenge posters on her, yet it's not for other users to challenge you? No...it is okay to discuss amicably, without extra sarcasm thrown into the equation. If you do, then you just have turned it into a fight. Cos why should you take offence on a subject which is open for discussion anyhow? This IS a thread about religion. Yep, more hypocrisy, especially as it was you that resurrected a two month old thread. Sorry, it was not me who brought up this thread. Please trace back. Why tell me this? It bears no relation to my post (and the one you quoted, to boot). Because I am trying to defend myself here, as you are criticising me on my actions are you not ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Sorry, it was not me who brought up this thread. Please trace back. Apologies, indeed it wasn't. Because I am trying to defend myself here, as you are criticising me on my actions are you not ? No you're not. You have the most antagonistic posting style I've seen on SF for quite a while. Not a pretty trait at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.