Re: Kelly does not like it when I say she is the problem...
- From: "(<<Kelly>>)" <rosie_belle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:11:12 -0800 (PST)
On Dec 17, 5:25 pm, crunch <pchristain...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 17, 5:50 pm, "(<<Kelly>>)" <rosie_be...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 17, 12:45 pm, crunch <pchristain...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So, I believe Tony Haynes expressed today his feeling thatLet the other SRQers decide whether KellyRight about what specific problem? (because where you are concerned,
is right or whether I am right.
there are so *many* problems)
our exchange in Thread "For Christmas bid strife and discord cease"
was very "UN-Quakerly".
You didn't answer the above question.
You are perceptive here; I did not answer
the above question for good reason. So,
your observation here means nothing because
you do not possess wisdom to go along with
your observational powers, the wisdom to "get it".
IOW you rarely "get it"; you don't co-operate in
conversation the way both Christians and Quakers
should; thus, we have exchanges, not conversations
in any shape or form.
IOW I daresay you are not a Christian in the deeper
meaning of the term; I daresay you profoundly
misunderstand the real Jesus Christ.
Very politely, my reply to him, however, gave an important issue and
specific problem where you and I differ - is the Bible the Word of
God?
Why haven't you answered the above question?
Your mentality cannot understand any answer I would give.
IOW the very nature of communication between us broke
down on SRQ almost from the beginning.
I urge you to read my reply in careful and close detail. If
you decide to challenge any of the detail in a future post,
I will give it my undivided attention and deal with your objections
specifically.
None of this has anything to do with the above question. I would
prefer you answer that question, first.
Because any civilized relationship between us is light-years
away, I cannot answer that question first. I leave it to you
to exercise your intuition. Indeed, none of what you say
here has anything to do with my request of you, which you
ignored.
If this conversation happens, may it be worthwhile and instructive
for other interested SRQers.
Whassamatter, Soggy? Trying to change the subject with something off-
topic for this thread because you didn't get the response from other
SRQers that you hoped for...?
I called you a loon. My bad because it is not strong enough.
That you are a cheap bigot that rarely corrects herself is obvious
but laziness is actually your dominant characteristic.
Lazy in intellect; lazy in good manners...
LOL! Above you call me jejune names and then have the temerity to
tell me *I* am lazy in intellect and good manners...?
LOL! Oh, the irony!!!
And don't worry, Soggy - I don't expect you to answer the question.
Your track record speaks for itself in that arena.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Kelly does not like it when I say she is the problem...
- From: crunch
- Re: Kelly does not like it when I say she is the problem...
- From: (<<Kelly>>)
- Re: Kelly does not like it when I say she is the problem...
- From: crunch
- Re: Kelly does not like it when I say she is the problem...
- From: (<<Kelly>>)
- Re: Kelly does not like it when I say she is the problem...
- From: crunch
- Kelly does not like it when I say she is the problem...
- Prev by Date: Re: For Christmas bid strife and discord cease
- Next by Date: Re: For Christmas bid strife and discord cease
- Previous by thread: Re: Kelly does not like it when I say she is the problem...
- Next by thread: Re: Kelly does not like it when I say she is the problem...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
