What's new

The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Maria, please drop it for now - for the others' sake. I will do likewise.

If you want to bring it up again in a week or two, fine, otherwise I might have to go against what I said to Lakey and come back on the thread and wherever else I need to go to defend myself. Truce, please. Cease fire.
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Theism, atheism, and anti-theism are subsets of "belief" which is the acceptance of truth or falseness of a position without certain knowledge. Gnosis and agnosis are conditions of knowledge. One either knows or does not. Given "infinity" a finite being can gave no certain knowledge. Therefore all positions on infinity fall under belief rather than knowledge. EVERYONE is agnostic on infinity. One simply cannot KNOW there is or isn't a god. Evidence or presupposion now enter in. I am an atheist because I see no evidence to accept anyone's prior claims of gods and believe me that I've looked at most of the apologies theists have given and the critiques. This does not just apply to christians nor even to monotheists. Pantheists as well. I am agnostic to the degree that I don't KNOW there is no god. I just find the likelyhood to be many orders of magnitude to the right of the decimal point.

What s/he said.

I would add that the apologetics tend to fall into the same categories or lines of thinking and rationalization as others that have been proven to be delusional / untrue in the realms of medical quackery, scientific crankhood, politics and ideology.

People are so quick to say "well, you seem so certain, why aren't you applying your scientific method here, too?".

The answer to that is, I'm about as certain as I am that a moon-sized asteroid is not going to destroy the Earth. That is: pretty certain, to the point I don't even think about it, but I'm open to new data. New data, not new opinions.

Furthermore, there have been legions of Henny Pennys clamoring for my attention about their theory that the sky is about to fall in the form of said asteroid, They further demand that I start out by assuming nothing about the veracity of their claims, just as I would a reputable scientist making a novel claim in a journal article. Yet they bring faulty logic and lack of evidence to the party. And then demand that I take time to sort it out.

No.

And I say no, because taking one them at face value would be all well and good if they were the only Henny Penny in line for my attention, but I've already seen thousands in my career, and there is a line behind them stretching beyond the horizon.

So my reply is: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence just to get my attention. Otherwise, life's too short for that shit.
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Not a very Christian thought.

Scientology applied from the viewpoint of Torquemada.

Why a not a chicken...oops! Cancel that. Why a not a
burning at the stake?

Sez ye who claim to have 'never believed in god', yet you have a position on Christianity ? That's funny .

And you do believe in Xenu, et al ?

Dude, tell me you are pulling my leg !
 
Last edited:
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

What I find of interest & will have to spend some time pondering is this :

A Christian can express doubts & talk about parts of the bible, God, organized religion, or anything else & do so WITHIN the Christianity community ( <- for lack of a better word ).

Xenu, on the other hand, is a 'secret' section of a (so-called -->) 'religion' (<-- damn I dislike saying that! ) scn (<-- barf) that does not tolerate anyone havings doubts, not believing, or discussing any aspect of it except to praise.

What I don't get - really need help with - is how the fuck can some posters make any kind of belief comparison in Jesus or God & Xenu.

That kind of comparison makes me feel crazy ! Like while discussing oranges ( or ornages, if you prefer ) & some one in all earnest throws the number 17 in the middle of the conversation as if it is revelant to the discussion of the topic. Yes, both are faith based But, god damn can't anyone look at the fucking differences !

<> <> <> <>

Long ago on another board a dear friend who was a real ( not imagined in their own head ) moderator used to say to me with great frequency " Read the post first then see who posted it ".


Disagreeing with a post is not necessarily an attack on the poster - but ( as is so often seen ) can be. ( and THAT is why there are mods ).

But, all in all, it is, to me, overall distressing to watch a lively discussion of Christianity & God then watch the heart of scientology get thrown in the mix - it sort of drives home the fact that scientology, L Ron Hubbard, the tech & all that is going to remain the focus of some people's lives even after they claim to have left it.

Looks like for some that scientology will always be like the flame for the moth. That fire is just not going to go out in the heart, mind, or soul of some.

( guess that could be my graduation speech from ESMB ).
 
Last edited:
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

What I find of interest & will have to spend some time pondering is this :

A Christian can express doubts & talk about parts of the bible, God, organized religion, or anything else & do so WITHIN the Christianity community ( <- for lack of a better word ).

Xenu, on the other hand, is a 'secret' section of a (so-called -->) 'religion' (<-- damn I dislike saying that! ) scn (<-- barf) that does not tolerate anyone havings doubts, not believing, or discussing any aspect of it except to praise.

What I don't get - really need help with - is how the fuck can some posters make any kind of belief comparison in Jesus or God & Xenu.

That kind of comparison makes me feel crazy ! Like while discussing oranges ( or ornages, if you prefer ) & some one in all earnest throws the number 17 in the middle of the conversation as if it is revenant to the discussion of the topic. Yes, both are faith based But, god damn can't anyone look at the fucking differences !

<> <> <> <>

Long ago on another board a dear friend who was a real ( not imagined in their own head ) moderator used to say to me with great frequency " Read the post first then see who posted it ".


Disagreeing with a post is not necessarily an attack on the poster - but ( as is so often seen ) can be. ( and THAT is why there are mods ).

But, all in all, it is, to me, overall distressing to watch a lively discussion of Christianity & God then watch the heart of scientology get thrown in the mix - it sort of drives home the fact that scientology, L Ron Hubbard, the tech & all that is going to remain the focus of some people's lives even after they claim to have left it.

Looks like for some that scientology will always be like the flame for the moth. That fire is just not going to go out in the heart, mind, or soul of some.

( guess that could be my graduation speech from ESMB ).

Various christian sects, including the catholic church and many of the major protestant denominations have a long track record of killing apostates and blasphemers. Huge wars have been fought over disagreements in scripture.

As much as all of us want to kick over the ashes of cos for it's tragic fuckery, fundamentalist christianity is demonstrably more dangerous to the world's continued existence. Dominionism, literalism, young earth creationism and the like are thought stoppers that are at least as powerful as those of scn. "God said it, I believe it, that's the end of it" is analogous to "KSW" wouldn't you say?

Of course, you are right that xenu is the wrong comparison to jesus. Given the total lack of archaeological evidence of jesus' existence (and some christians' refusal to read valid archaeologists in favor of Answers in Genesis and such) the more apt comparison might be "clear" versus "saved". Both present claims without evidence that cannot be verified. That being said, jesus is STILL more likely than xenu, regardless of how unlikely he might be.
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Various christian sects, including the catholic church and many of the major protestant denominations have a long track record of killing apostates and blasphemers. Huge wars have been fought over disagreements in scripture.
.


LOL ! You quote well known but ANCIENT history to make your point TODAY ?

And, you are really fucking dead serious ! !

I guess being the Romans fed Christians to the lions & tigers for amusement thousands of years ago that you can excuse DM for just merely punching here & there his staff TODAY ?

I guess you'll tell me rice & beans for staff is a great meal today compared to what the Nazis fed the jews in concentration camps during WWII ?

And, OMG,then you'll the slaves all those thousands that built the pyramids was plumb awful life compared to the lark of doing renos on the RPF TODAY !

All during the History of Mankind other Christian religions have been awful, terrible, killing torturing mother fuckers until along came scientology & brought PEACE to the world !

But for you, I see for you that thousands of years ago & today are IDENTICAL ! Bravo for you !

Yes, I can see for you that ' Scientiolgy is right & and all is real fucking WRONG "! All hail Hubbard ! ! ! !

Yeah those Christians - even in your beloved 'present time' ( <-- out in the real world that is called " now" ) with all their OVERTS do- make scientology & scientolgists all so much higher than even those mythical saints of yore !

Boy howdy ! That there scientology is the answer for the all mankind.
Oh yes in deed they have proven that fact ! ( LOL ! )

[ P fucking S : No apostate of the great & wonderful Scientology has ever been harmed, harassed, had their family or income messed with in any way shape or form in the history of Scientolgy ! Any one that even hints otherwise is a liar with a long sordid criminal background ! ]

So, yes, SPsince83, I do really do 'duplicate' ( <-- real world speak is "get" ) EXACTLY where you are coming from.

[[ PP double fucking S : You probably didn't read where I in plain English said I do not accept the bible as wholly the Holy Word of God. Nowhere have I gotten close to the common believe in having to accept Jesus as a personal Savior . So this :

" God said it.
I believe it.
That settles it ! "

Is very representative of many hard core Fundamentalists it hardly is representative of the broad perspective of Christianity TODAY .

Being you mentioned Jesus. Uh, there is some indication the writing of him happened 150 years after he was gone. Hmm, imagine if we now started writing the history of our Civil War ? How'd THAT work ?

Never mind that there is nothing in the bible that wasn't written in stone by the Sumerian's some 10,000 years before any Christianity popped up.

Let's just skip some biblical interpretations of what happened might be explanations of encounters with alien life forces in space.
craft.

Hell, we have the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, Santa, Unicorns & mermaids - why not Zenu, too ? - LOL ! ]]
 
Last edited:
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Sez ye who claim to have 'never believed in god', yet you have a position on Christianity ? That's funny .

And you do believe in Xenu, et al ?

Dude, tell me you are pulling my leg !

The fact that I'm quoting one of the Mark Bros indicates
that this post is not completely serious.

Its quite possible to have a position on Xtianity without
believing in God. Its quite possible to have a position on
jihadists without having even read the Koran.

I don't believe in Xenu yet had great wins on OT 2&3.
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

The fact that I'm quoting one of the Mark Bros indicates
that this post is not completely serious.

Its quite possible to have a position on Xtianity without
believing in God. Its quite possible to have a position on
jihadists without having even read the Koran.

I don't believe in Xenu yet had great wins on OT 2&3.

That'd be the doggie position ?

Yes, I do believe you believe you got " wins & gains on OT 2 & 3 but don't believe in Xenu "

I just so deeply would like you to use that line as your siggy to make it a little ( here it comes ! ) "clearer" to your readers more where you are coming from - know what I mean ?
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

LOL ! You quote well known but ANCIENT history to make your point TODAY ?

And, you are really fucking dead serious ! !

I guess being the Romans fed Christians to the lions & tigers for amusement thousands of years ago that you can excuse DM for just merely punching here & there his staff TODAY ?

I guess you'll tell me rice & beans for staff is a great meal today compared to what the Nazis fed the jews in concentration camps during WWII ?

And, OMG,then you'll the slaves all those thousands that built the pyramids was plumb awful life compared to the lark of doing renos on the RPF TODAY !

All during the History of Mankind other Christian religions have been awful, terrible, killing torturing mother fuckers until along came scientology & brought PEACE to the world !

But for you, I see for you that thousands of years ago & today are IDENTICAL ! Bravo for you !

Yes, I can see for you that ' Scientiolgy is right & and all is real fucking WRONG "! All hail Hubbard ! ! ! !

Yeah those Christians - even in your beloved 'present time' ( <-- out in the real world that is called " now" ) with all their OVERTS do- make scientology & scientolgists all so much higher than even those mythical saints of yore !

Boy howdy ! That there scientology is the answer for the all mankind.
Oh yes in deed they have proven that fact ! ( LOL ! )

[ P fucking S : No apostate of the great & wonderful Scientology has ever been harmed, harassed, had their family or income messed with in any way shape or form in the history of Scientolgy ! Any one that even hints otherwise is a liar with a long sordid criminal background ! ]

So, yes, SPsince83, I do really do 'duplicate' ( <-- real world speak is "get" ) EXACTLY where you are coming from.

No, obviously you don't. I see both as damagingly incorrect viewpoints. While scn and L Con have damaged all of us for sure, my point is that in it's history and to the current day, belief in woo causes HUGE problems for those who disagree. And it isn't ancient history. To this day, the catholic church is telling central africans not to use condoms because jesus. This is causing AIDS to be transmitted at a shocking rate that doesn't exist in the rest of the world. Furthermore, if one disregards history, it is that much more easily repeated.

My viewpoint is that christianity is just as unprovable as scn, and has done significantly more damage to significantly more people and it continues to do so. It's promise, that of permanent residence in heaven with god in eternal bliss is completely unfalsifiable. God is an untestable hypothesis. Of course scn can be OBJECTIVELY falsified in many ways so belief in various god claims might be more easily understood than belief in scn, especially to those of us who woke up to cos bullshit.
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I will be posting in my blog about the xenu v. Christ and also doing philosophical exegesis of why Dianetics/Scientology is a crude philosophy.

I really like what you have written here Gizmo. I'd do the sort of comparison you suggest myself, if I can pull it off, but not sure if it would fit the thread to do so. We will see what happens.

I think part of the problem is that the topic is so broad and it's easy to fall into abstractions. For example, if I was to compare Christianity to Scn, it would too huge for one post. So I'd have to start with smaller topics. A list could be the afterlife, our ethical being, what a soul is, what cause means in either thinking and why it is or is not a worthwhile goal, what an engram's counterpart would be in Christianity (or not at all and why), why the Freudian breakdown of the mind that Scn uses is wrong and fails in the Christian picture, in my opinion only of course, since I am a philosopher and NOT a theologian. My expertise is really the philosophical side of a question and NOT the theological side. And the list could be quite long of subtopics so those I listed are only a beginning suggestion. Then after taking up those sub topics, either as subtopics in one greater article or by writing these up as separate articles, I could then give an overview conclusion as to why Christianity is so superior to Scn or Dianetics. And I could do a comparable sort of analysis for Shamanism too. And of course of yet I have never explained what I believe and what form of Christianity I practice. I guess I never explained it because to date I have ever been asked directly with specific questions given in a collegial way, such as, what do you believe and why do you believe that, nicely of course, in a safe space. And also I have not discussed it because since this is an ex-Scientology forum I'd have to find the correct place to post that 'story' and I don't know if Lakey minds if I do that here. If I am not wrong Lakey, I am practically the second mod here by now? LOL. Or perhaps I am just a sort of talk show host #2 to Lakey, the Mod and senior producer/talk show host #1.

I also do want to thank the 9 persons who have pm'ed me here. Yes, I have only pm'ed with 9 persons, all of whom contacted me first. I never originated a pm except to the mod for the forum when I asked that my screen name be changed to use my real name. Of those who contacted me, three are exes from Miami, none are active scientologists, the rest are from places unknown. One we all know, Arnie, who has been banned. I won't reveal other names since there is no reason to and it would violate their privacy. The pms were one offs mostly, and not a continual activity anyway, mostly where I was asked specific questions or some private comment was made about what I have written somewhere. I also want to thank those who in the last few days pm'ed about the way I was massively attacked for no reason I can discern other than I spoke and had opinions and I was here. Thank you to all of you who did so! Or who thanked/liked my posts in this regard. The support is appreciated.

Gib, I still have not really answered the questions you asked. I want to but was very busy this past weekend and this week I will be catching up as much as I can.

Hugs and kisses to everyone! :biglove:Thank you for being so kind and caring here and giving me a chance to be myself and to explain myself without recrimination. Terril, that includes you, who I find charming as well as lucid in your explanations even when I don't always agree.

Maria



What I find of interest & will have to spend some time pondering is this :

A Christian can express doubts & talk about parts of the bible, God, organized religion, or anything else & do so WITHIN the Christianity community ( <- for lack of a better word ).

Xenu, on the other hand, is a 'secret' section of a (so-called -->) 'religion' (<-- damn I dislike saying that! ) scn (<-- barf) that does not tolerate anyone havings doubts, not believing, or discussing any aspect of it except to praise.

What I don't get - really need help with - is how the fuck can some posters make any kind of belief comparison in Jesus or God & Xenu.

That kind of comparison makes me feel crazy ! Like while discussing oranges ( or ornages, if you prefer ) & some one in all earnest throws the number 17 in the middle of the conversation as if it is revelant to the discussion of the topic. Yes, both are faith based But, god damn can't anyone look at the fucking differences !

<> <> <> <>

Long ago on another board a dear friend who was a real ( not imagined in their own head ) moderator used to say to me with great frequency " Read the post first then see who posted it ".


Disagreeing with a post is not necessarily an attack on the poster - but ( as is so often seen ) can be. ( and THAT is why there are mods ).

But, all in all, it is, to me, overall distressing to watch a lively discussion of Christianity & God then watch the heart of scientology get thrown in the mix - it sort of drives home the fact that scientology, L Ron Hubbard, the tech & all that is going to remain the focus of some people's lives even after they claim to have left it.

Looks like for some that scientology will always be like the flame for the moth. That fire is just not going to go out in the heart, mind, or soul of some.

( guess that could be my graduation speech from ESMB ).
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

No, obviously you don't. I see both as damagingly incorrect viewpoints. While scn and L Con have damaged all of us for sure, my point is that in it's history and to the current day, belief in woo causes HUGE problems for those who disagree. And it isn't ancient history. To this day, the catholic church is telling central africans not to use condoms because jesus. This is causing AIDS to be transmitted at a shocking rate that doesn't exist in the rest of the world. Furthermore, if one disregards history, it is that much more easily repeated.

My viewpoint is that Christianity is just as unprovable as scn, and has done significantly more damage to significantly more people and it continues to do so. It's promise, that of permanent residence in heaven with god in eternal bliss is completely unfalsifiable. God is an untestable hypothesis. Of course scn can be OBJECTIVELY falsified in many ways so belief in various god claims might be more easily understood than belief in scn, especially to those of us who woke up to cos bullshit.

Hi, you are right, that Jesus is God is unprovable. But that is why it involves faith, not logic to accept Jesus. It is true that religion (e.g., a human institution that claims to be Christian) has done lots of damage and continues to do so when it treats harshly and lacks heart with human beings and their suffering. It is easy to tell when Christianity is NOT Christianity by the simple acts one sees in this way, since we have the message of love in Corinthians, and in John. When the love that we are commanded, the new law, is absent for myself I don't feel Jesus there. God for me does not fit what can be tested in a hypothesis since science is a finite set of methodologies that work with sensible reality and objects, that is, the physical world and its contents, and really acknowledges it does not have access to any beyond. So each thing, faith and science, employs its own sort of 'logics' and obviously the tool sets and methodologies of the sciences are not going to produce results in spiritual domains, which are beyond the limits of human reason, as Kant correctly noted in the 1700s. As well, the spiritual domain is beyond the reach of empirical sciences since it (the spiritual domain) is not 'empirical.'

As a final note, I speak concerning Christianity only in my capacity as a person who is a believer. I'm not a theologian, or an expert, so all my comments are based on my personal experiences. Of course, since I am a trained philosopher, I am able to interpret texts and this helps me a lot in being able to express myself. Since there are so many different Christian practices, I don't claim to even begin to understand them all or even some. I have my own limited understanding of what it means to be a Christian, which I have never explained on this forum and have never been asked to. So I am doing the best I can here. I have had the pleasure of reading most of the early Church texts and writings, as part of my philosophical training, primarily Medieval texts, in addition to the bible, and other texts such as the Greek and Gnostic texts written from Ancient to Modern. It has helped a lot in forming me that I had that opportunity to read.
 
Last edited:
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Hi, you are right, that Jesus is God is unprovable. But that is why it involves faith, not logic to accept Jesus. It is true that religion (e.g., a human institution that claims to be Christian) has done lots of damage and continues to do so when it treats harshly and lacks heart with human beings and their suffering. It is easy to tell when Christianity is NOT Christianity by the simple acts one sees in this way, since we have the message of love in Corinthians, and in John. When the love that we are commanded, the new law, is absent for myself I don't feel Jesus there. God for me does not fit what can be tested in a hypothesis since science is a finite set of methodologies that work with sensible reality and objects, that is, the physical world and its contents, and really acknowledges it does not have access to any beyond. So each thing, faith and science, employs its own sort of 'logics' and obviously the tool sets and methodologies of the sciences are not going to produce results in spiritual domains, which are beyond the limits of human reason, as Kant correctly noted in the 1700s. As well, the spiritual domain is beyond the reach of empirical sciences since it (the spiritual domain) is not 'empirical.'

As a final note, I speak concerning Christianity only in my capacity as a person who is a believer. I'm not a theologian, or an expert, so all my comments are based on my personal experiences. Of course, since I am a trained philosopher, I am able to interpret texts and this helps me a lot in being able to express myself. Since there are so many different Christian practices, I don't claim to even begin to understand them all or even some. I have my own limited understanding of what it means to be a Christian, which I have never explained on this forum and have never been asked to. So I am doing the best I can here. I have had the pleasure of reading most of the early Church texts and writings, as part of my philosophical training, primarily Medieval texts, in addition to the bible, and other texts such as the Greek and Gnostic texts written from Ancient to Modern. It has helped a lot in forming me that I had that opportunity to read.

I get it but in order to see a need for redemption, there must be a NEED for redemption, no? The concept of original sin is absolutely necessary for there to be a need for redemption. If Genesis 1 and 2 can be shown false in any way, then a "christ" is unnecessary. With no fruit of the forbidden tree, there is no original sin. And Genesis 1 and 2 are indeed demonstrably falsified by biology, chemistry, physics, anthropology, astronomy, etc.

So the question remains: on what does one base "faith"? Why is faith in something that cannot be shown in any way a positive trait? How do I decide, absent evidence, which viewpoints are valid? Philosophy is fascinating, but I'm sure you are aware of the sheer amount of mental masturbation that occurs in the field (didn't our conFounder claim philosophical validity?).

Esoteric and mystical christianity and various new agey viewpoints that share similar roots in the gnosis were supposedly wiped out by the church (suffer not a witch to live, eg.) but have made comebacks lately. These make more coherent sense than the ubiquitous fundamentalism we are bombarded with in America in the 21st century, but still depend on Genesis 1 and 2 for validity.
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Terril, that includes you, who I find charming as well as lucid in your explanations even when I don't always agree.

Maria

Thanks for kind words :)

BTW you needn't worry about going off topic on this thread.

Its covered everything from oral sex to philosophy, and meandering
past music, cars and aeroplanes and most anything else under the sun.
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I also do want to thank the 9 persons who have pm'ed me here. Yes, I have only pm'ed with 9 persons, all of whom contacted me first. I never originated a pm except to the mod for the forum
Maria

So how many PMs that you originated to others are you not counting besides the PMs you sent to me? Should I post the PM you didn't originate to me that you originated to me here?

Yes, I asked you to stop, but you just keep going on and on with your outright lies.
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Various christian sects, including the catholic church and many of the major protestant denominations have a long track record of killing apostates and blasphemers. Huge wars have been fought over disagreements in scripture.

As much as all of us want to kick over the ashes of cos for it's tragic fuckery, fundamentalist christianity is demonstrably more dangerous to the world's continued existence. Dominionism, literalism, young earth creationism and the like are thought stoppers that are at least as powerful as those of scn. "God said it, I believe it, that's the end of it" is analogous to "KSW" wouldn't you say?

Of course, you are right that xenu is the wrong comparison to jesus. Given the total lack of archaeological evidence of jesus' existence (and some christians' refusal to read valid archaeologists in favor of Answers in Genesis and such) the more apt comparison might be "clear" versus "saved". Both present claims without evidence that cannot be verified. That being said, jesus is STILL more likely than xenu, regardless of how unlikely he might be.

This sounds a lot like Tom Martiniano's book, "My God is Bigger Than Your God." Are your concepts from that book?

Although you have a point about faith and that belief in Scientology or Xenu requires a similar sort of faith, and that these bring people to religion or Scientology (with which I agree), to compare how many people died at the hands of Scientology since it started just over sixty years ago in a modern, civilised society to those that were killed in the name of Christianity a thousand years ago, mostly during the Middle Ages, for a religion that is over 2000 years old just doesn't make a lot of sense as an argument. One can use the same line of illogic to name any other people that ever existed in ancient times to compare how much worse they are than people today in governments and cultures that are in a modern society. You're comparing apples and potatoes. :confused2: It doesn't work.

I am not in any way discounting the fact that there have been terrible actions done in the name of religion and that Christianity once had a bloody, horrible, shameful history.

And I agree with other posters here (including Maria, lol!) that there are too many points to discuss. You tend to smash all your points together and that isn't proper debating. When you use an illogical argument as above, it weakens your position.
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

So how many PMs that you originated to others are you not counting besides the PMs you sent to me? Should I post the PM you didn't originate to me that you originated to me here?

Yes, I asked you to stop, but you just keep going on and on with your outright lies.

i have in total only pmed with 9 persons. But thank you for overstating my popularity as to how many people you think are pming me! It is nice to be loved. And please don't accuse me of being a liar since that is a reportable offense - ad hominem attack. Also there would be no way to verify who I pm with or if I am lying unless you owned the forum and could check my records in the MySQL database. So your claim is unkind speculation. Why you do that I can't imagine.... Take care.
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

<snip>
When you use an illogical argument as above, it weakens your position.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
Yeah, that was exactly why your unfair attack against me in that other thread was not worth my time. :lol: :hysterical:

I'd really like to know why you felt the need to take my post, snip a significant part, address something I've NEVER said, mention something that other posters have said but not me, then stir it all up with a good portion of of bullshit and throw it all in my face?

Meh, I don't really expect a clear, honest answer to that. You've made your bed, now have a good night's sleep in it. :biggrin:

[STRIKE]See[/STRIKE] Read ya tomorrow. :tobed:
 
Last edited:
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

i have in total only pmed with 9 persons. But thank you for overstating my popularity as to how many people you think are pming me! It is nice to be loved. And please don't accuse me of being a liar since that is a reportable offense - ad hominem attack. Also there would be no way to verify who I pm with or if I am lying unless you owned the forum and could check my records in the MySQL database. So your claim is unkind speculation. Why you do that I can't imagine.... Take care.

You are a liar. Report me. I have the PM you originated to me that you are still denying. You stated earlier that you never originated a PM to anybody. Again, would you like me to post it? Should we ask other ESMB members to post any PMs you may have originated to them as well?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top