Re: Kelly does not like it when I say she is the problem...

On Dec 18, 5:32 pm, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
crunch wrote:
On Dec 18, 3:50 pm, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
crunch wrote:
On Dec 18, 1:37 pm, "(<<Kelly>>)" <rosie_be...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 18, 9:51 am, crunch <pchristain...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
you fail to understand in what ways
the New Testament shows uninspired prejudice
in that you have never examined the case for this
side of the argument for the issue of whether the
Bible is the Word of God.
Was that supposed to mean something to me?  (and don't think I didn't
notice your dodge regarding your broken promises and lies surrounding
your inability to answer Yowie's 8 questions.
You are deluded and never even gave the matter of
Yowie's 8 questions your full and objective attention.
IOW you are in the usenet game to be an irritant but
your closed mind is no concern of mine.
IOW my exposure to the Thi
<snip obsessive thiering garbage>
I come across as polite and informative.
Yes, I'm sure you believe you do.  What they think, however, is
another matter entirely.  To them, just like with us, you come across
as annoying and obsessed.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Speak for yourself, not for "us".  To be perfectly
frank, you are the most blatant liar I have ever come
into contact with.  It is my pleasure to continue to
expose you.
I agree with Kelly on little, but I agree with her on this.

But not for good reason.

You
are not a very good judge of how other people observe you.

The reverse is the case.  Look!  I'll explain the
situation, as I see it, for you.  My style is exactly
like George Fox's simple and uncompromising
approach to the Faith.

This
is true at least on Usenet. But that's part of your charm; you
have no capacity for introspection.

You do not know me; the reverse is the case.  Next
time you interact with me -  may you ask me relevant questions
about my views that YOU pick so that your ignorance
here may be cleared up.

I predict that, if you answer
this, you will do an "I'm rubber, you're glue" dealie.

Prove me wrong.

QED.

<snip>

--
Tom "Go Pack" McDonald- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Words go in one ear and out the other with you
and you have no questions for me; so, you don't want
to take in new information for your closed mind.

You are attracted by SRQ thunder and lightening
but never take it upon yourself to investigate whether
the Thiering Thesis and her pesher have merit.

My opinion is that she deserve the Nobel Prize for
her scholarly work.

Among other paradigm-breaking, her work involves
a total re-write of what the New Testament has
traditionally meant. IOW she deconstructs almost everything
that Christians worldwide have always believed - a radical
shake-up.

As Pilate once asked - what is truth? I say it depends
on the evidence, the data. May more people examine it.
I have faith that they will; it is important for the coming
post-Christian era.

Dave
.

Relevant Pages