Most of those who’ve had “issues” with** tomndebb** are, indeed, fair game for scoffing.
You expressed your opinion on all of my statements–but ignored **Valteron’s ** “Crusade.” That particular thread has affected my opinions.
Slight correction: That last comment was aimed at me! So Liberal definitely didn’t deserve it.
Exactly. You’re absolutely right.
I think Bridget Burke started with a snotty tone, but hey, whatever.
Everyone in the world could disagree with me and it wouldn’t get under my skin if I thought I was right. I think this thread was wonky from the beginning. However, I am going to bow out now because I think I’ve made the points I wanted to make. Don’t know Valteron well enough to launch into a pitched defense of him. I also like tomndebb and don’t want to go off on him either.
We will now proceed with our regularly schedule trainwreck…
Oops. My bad. Yes, I think Bridget was a tad snotty in the post you cited. Sorry, Bridget, but there it is.
Tom gives long passionless defenses of the R.C.C. Sorry but the church is indefensible, From the castrato singers to caving to European leaders throughout history. Nazi capitulation, just part of doing business. If the church is a religious organization first and a business second then why did they do this crap. ?
Nowadays it is no better. I judge the church by what happens in the streets. Down where the rubber meets the alter boy. In parishes around the country ,the church has covered up the actions of buggering priests and brutal nuns. Paying off kids with twisted futures and bringing the political power of the church down on the whistle blowers. This is fundimentaly wrong. They should be ashamed of themselves.
Now the church is fleeing the cities to the suburbs. The mission of the church is so easily abandoned. when money is part of the equation. I have no respect for it now. How many basket donations did the church waste in lawsuits because they refused to do the right thing. The R.C.C. has lost its moral compass like the giant corporation that it is.
Yet Tom is able to defend this anachronism . Beats me how.
No, tom gives you the letter of the “corporate” law. That doesn’t mean that he personally approves of or defends the way that law is carried out.
Why does everything have to be painted with such a broad brush? Should the U.S. be destroyed because of the many shitty things its government has done over the centuries? If not, why not - because of the good things it has done as well, or because not all members of the U.S. are total shits? Either argument applies for the RCC, and I speak here as a hard atheist.
Cite?
I believe you are confusing posts to correct errors of fact, (you know, fighting ignorance and all that), with “defending.”
I suppose that if one’s position is that some entity is so evil that it is legitimate to make false sytatements about it in order to display one’s disgust, any correction of errors is similary offensive, but I prefer to engage in factual and honest discourse.
If it is that evil, the facts will not save it and the lies and errors will not hasten its demise.
Ooh! “Snottiness” not allowed in the Pit!
Thanks for the warning.
Didn’t mean it wasn’t allowed - just saying that her snottiness in return wasn’t that out of line.
Bullshit. You define discourse as agreeing with your exalted position and any dispute as unfair and ignorant. You are defending a group that has allowed unspeakable acts to be done throughout its history with a wimpy ,its not approved by the doctrine. Fuck that. They have allowed generations of disgusting acts and covered it up. I do not give 2 shits that official doctrine says it is wrong. Once the cover up begins the moral stance is gone. When children are having their lives wrecked ,I expect a religious purge of all the evil doers. It never happened. Not as long as it threatens their income and political power.
I don’t think Tom is defending the Church any more than you were defending drunk driving when you recently stated the simple fact that “Big fines and jail time don’t work”.
Actually I posted a site that said that.
Huh? I don’t understand you.
I think you meant a “cite”.
Also, I don’t think you are reading Tom’s posts for comprehension.
For the eighty-five-thousandth time, the hypothetical was illustrating a fake, imaginary, irrelevant, meaningless number only to illustrate the meaning of a word. It had nothing to do with the actual issue. You then tried to extrapolate the number to the issue that it didn’t belong in. Never will.
No it does belong in the issue–your point appears to be people should consider that someone who is late could have ADD and we should consider that first as the likely cause before we label them rude assholes. If the percentage of someone who has ADD (who also exhibits this running late behavior) is .000001 of those with ADD or 100% of those with ADD is relative to your claim that we should take that into consideration. If the percentage of people who run late are just plain assholes is 50% then that is also a factor to consider. The contention we hold (if I can speak for the others) is that the likely reason someone runs late is rude behavior and the chances of them being late for ADD causes is so miniscule to not even a consideration.
Contrapuntal (and from my reading of QED above) and myself felt you did NOT answer the question asked of you. You can bray all you want that you did–but the reality is that you did not. You did the same thing in that thread where Jodi handed you your ass—and you did it in the thread with MrDibble, etc. You stake your position and you hold it regardless of what anyone says to you. All that is fine (we all do that to some extent), but when you do it in the face of many posters saying you did not answer it–you end up looking like Magellan or any of the other posters I personally hold in the same regard
So to paraphase you in your so familiar style
You. did. not. answer. the. fucking. question.
Supposing you’re right — and I’m just asking here is all — why is she obligated to answer someone’s specific question? I mean, I’m asking you a question right now, and if you just left it be, I wouldn’t bring it up every time I saw you post in a thread. I like Contrapuntal and Quid both, but I don’t understand why the matter can’t just be dropped. I’ve seen her practically hounded about this in several different threads, and as far as I can determine, she has answered the question to a fare-thee-well and forty ways from Sunday. What answer could she give that would satisfy people?
That is your citation that i have defended the RCC?
Seems typical.
Just curious: have you ever spanked a child?
No, it wasn’t. You keep trying to make it seem that way, but that dog won’t hunt. You were caught in a ridiculous exaggeration, and rather than cop to it, began your campaign to blow smoke up our collective asses. Won’t work. Your words are still there, deny them as you may.
You’re a coward who does not have the courage to admit when she is wrong, or take note when a valid point has been made. In short, you’re a punk. You called me fond of the word ‘liar’, and when that was shown to be an ignorant misunderstanding based on a cursory search of the SDMB files, did not have the ovaries to own up to it. That is your style. Pull cites out of your ass, claim that you did not say what everyone knows you did, and ignore evidence to the contrary, no matter how overwhelming it is. It is weakass chickenshit blathering. Take it the fuck out of here.
One way to get me to stop would be to refrain from potshots like the one upthread in her response to you. She is not being hounded. She is asking for it.
She may have answered it to a fare-thee-well, but by no means forty ways from Sunday. She has only answered one way.