Anaamika, I’m not looking for an appology. I never asked for an appology. I don’t feel you owe me an appology.
I slammed your comment in IMHO because I thought it was completely out of proportion and I stand by that opinion as well. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
I’m happy with that. This was not a pit thread filled with vitriol against you or anyone specific. I do feel that people throw around hyperbolies much too often and felt you were doing just that. Maybe you caught me on a sensitive day. Maybe my :rolleyes: caught you on a bad day as well. I don’t intend to hold a grudge either way.
And finally, and for the record, “butch up” <> “grow some balls” in my dictionary. In my lexicon it means toughen up and stop being so thin skinned. Physiologically speaking, I believe you’re fine just the way you are and I’m quite certain you don’t need my okay on the matter anyway.
So that’s it. Drama over. Truce? I’m tired of this topic anyway…
First, QuickSilver misspells “Apology”, then Miller corrects the spelling. <0_o> Is “mild-mannered” Miller, in reality, naive Patron Saint of Thermometers, QuickSilver?
Or am I misunderstanding, and Miller is simply corrected his spelling?
So, Quicksilver, it wasn’t me you were pitting, but the sentiment. Why didn’t you just say so? Other than that, I’ll agree to the truce if only because this is a fairly silly Pitting.
Looking over your past threads, it is obvious your opinions are not very like those of QuickSilver. I simply read your correction in the wrong spirit. However, it would not be the first time that someone pretended to be another person, and argued both sides of an argument. Now, it is obvious you are looking for a fight, so fine. Do you care to back-up your claims of my not making sense in the past?
Yeah, I know. Doing it on the SDMB gets you banned, and accusing other posters of being a sock puppet is against board rules. Also, it’s more than a little fucking insulting, so don’t go accusing me of looking for a fight you started.
Sure. Do a search for posts under your name, and read any three at random. At least two of them will be incomprehensible.
I fully understand that accusations are forbidden. That, however, was an honest question. I was saying it was quite possible I was misunderstanding. However, I have followed your suggestion, and have looked over my past posts. I am completely blind to what you are claiming, and believe my own posts make sense. If you have a specific example, well then, bring it out.
Some of them have been a mite fuzzy in the past, but it’s not ever been the case that you haven’t come back to at least try to explain. And all that aside, I find that you often create interesting and thought-provoking threads and you’ve certainly made Cafe Society much more interesting.
However, I also see where **Miller ** is coming from. And now I’ll stop sticking my nose in the middle of you two.
You know what? Forget it. I take it back. You are a paragon of clear and rational discourse. A veritable modern Cicero, your prose cuts to the bone of any argument, and can sway the mind of the most hardened disputant. Truly, you are a master of rhetoric and debate. Whatever confusion I experienced was surely the creation of my mind, which is, after all, a humble and poorly-made thing, incapable of grasping the intricacies of educated discourse. I bitterly resent my ignorant and ignoble accusations, and beg of you the favor of your forgiveness.
I can’t answer for the other dopers. But what I meant by “upfront” was NOT that they will gladly fess up when in front of a court of law, but that they are not shy about enforcing their chosen modus operendi in front of the public eye. I never mentioned their attitudes when or if they get caught. I was speaking of the overall “tone” of their chosen professions.
I don’t have a clue about the vatican. My former church is the far more odious baptist church. They of the 'hate anyone who is different" creed. I have no idea if catholics have that same sort of attitude or not.
When I said sneaking lying church, I was thinking more along the lines of Jim Baker and Jimmy Swaggart.
Jeez, no. I am not the very image of a perfect speaker you have so well draw, no matter how sarcastically you meant it. However, just as I am not perfect, nor do I make the best worded OPs. However, taking a guess, I will assume you mean that I often make blanket statements in debate threads. That does not seem to be a rational thing to do, but in the past, once I elaborate my reasoning, the people I have spoken to in the past either where unable to come back with a reason why my position was illegitimate, or perhaps they simply gave up in discuss. It is impossible to see which one, from my end. It probably helps that the people I usually save my anger for on this board make their argument first, and find logic to support them later.
Didn’t I outline I was speaking about my former faith in that post? Sorry if I didn’t clarify.
At any rate, as my more recent posts states, I AM speaking of the baptist church and many of the similar “bible thumping” protestant spinoffs, and to reiterate, I know very little about the catholic one.
Also to clarify, I am still a christian, as in I believe in Christ. Just not a believer in all of the hypocrisy and ridiculous doctrines which make up far too large a percentage of my former church’s beliefs.
I’m tired of this topic anyway… 