I think we have a crossed wire here. This…
…was in response to this…
What I was still kind of referring to in my response to you (and I acknowldge that it’s actually a request, not a question) was the support for your assertion about bigotry.
Gyrate, if you’ve gotta continue with Libertarian on his deceptive hijack, would you mind starting a new thread? This one’s finally back on track.
Daniel
Whenever I am presented with a compelling argument, I will change my mind. But a dozen people sticking their tongues out at me does not constitute a compelling argument.
As of this writing, you have 16 posts in this thread. You have a lot of nerve accusing Gyrate of hijacking.
Here’s a whole new thread devoted entirely to Libertarian’s ongoing hijack. Take it there, m’kay?
Daniel
Uh, sorry for the hijack, it’s just that I’ve seen him debate on another message board and thought no one had ever heard of him. I’ve never heard of his radio show, but I can attest that he’s quite demented. 
Draw two overlapping circles. Label one of those circles Religious People. Label the other Nutjobs. Label the area where they overlap Religious Nutjobs.
See that area where they overlap?
People fitting into that area are who this thread is attacking.
It’s a pretty simple concept, and those who aren’t both religious and nutjobs shouldn’t really be offended.
Although, after seeing some people go crazy-go-nuts over this issue, I’m not sure that the overlap isn’t fairly represented on this board.
Hijacking a hijack based on your own hijack, with a new hijack. Brilliant form!
Buddha wants me to hijack this thread. He told me so. It is the only way to defeat the Forces of Darkness.
<wanders off to the other thread>
Hey, deja vu! Welcome to the Church of Venn, Gadfly; take a pew. Our first hymn will be “May the Circles Be Unbroken But Overlapping”. 
Back to the topic at hand: is it too late to nominate Rev. Ian Paisley? Because frankly, I think he’s mastered the art of religious/political nutjobbery.
I also feel the need to nominate some non-Christian religious nutjobs in the interest of balance, but apart from the most well-known examples (Osama bin Laden, for example) my experience in this area is somewhat lacking. What’s Louis Farrakhan up to these days?
I cannot tell you all how confused I am. When I left this thread, I had said:
And Libertarian replied:
WHAT THE HECK HAPPENED? We already had this debate! We already agreed! Lib, I’d really like to know what caused you to change your mind again.
Or, based on the belly sizes of the many Buddha statues in this area, Buddha wants you to eat the Forces of Darkness. While laughing.
Any individual would feel tweaked being called anything, so why the “people of faith” qualifier? The sentance remains ambiguous: either it means the obvious idea that Jack Chick probably feels tweaked when called a nutjob (true, but in the context of this thread, it’s a meaning that doesn’t seem to make much sense to bring up) or it implies a wider group of people who feel that THEY are being called nutjobs by people in this thread: something that, correctly or incorrectly as has yet to be determined, these people had so far denied.
I don’t know how someone could get so twisted up inside to, for the second time now, at least, turn this into an offhand weapon. Yes it does make me ill at ease. Yes, I have such a hard time with working personal communication and relationships that I missed out on spending time with one of the people I loved most in her last few months of life because I spent failed hours everyday trying to just causally call her up and hang out with her, and this goes on with other people I love. Feel free to turn that into your next winning barb. Does it make you feel better to be a bully? Does that help make up for being bullied youself?
Yes, I can get personal, and it’s not ultimately a big deal, just a problem, and I screw it up and I put it off, and it’s really hard and anxiety inducing, and especially so when it’s someone like you that seems so violently hot and cold and unpredictable and, bottom-line, frightening to me. I’m sorry I didn’t acknowledge your compliments, whatever offense that gave you, but more the sorry now because it gave you a cheap jumping off point for that last major tirade against me many months ago: one that I really felt was hurtful and unfair, going as far as to even suggest that you suspected me of making light of a personal tragedy of yours just to make a point. I was an idiot, and in my long, disjointed response, was dumb enough to tell you that you had no requirement to respond: an option you gleefully, or disdainfuly, or whatever it is you feel, jumped at.
Well, I rescind that offer. I want to know what the heck you think of me. I hope you’d be willing to revisit you past feelings and accusations and determinations about me, because I think you’ve done me wrong somewhere in you mind, and I want to know what the heck it is, and I’m hopped up on Xanax and caffine and don’t want things to be like this anymore. Maybe you don’t give a damn, but at least on my side of things, we are going to have this out until things are better and there is understanding. Trainwrecks like this shouldn’t happen. If you want people to appreciate your point of view, this isn’t how to do it. If what you want to do is to spread mutual understanding, and build relationships and fight nastiness and slander against believers and all people, then that goal is getting royally fucked up somewhere along the way.
Um, you’re weird and your mother dresses you funny.
No, I mean for dragging the whole thing up again.
Okay, I’m going to mention the $cientologists again. Oh, and definitely the cardinal saying that condoms CAUSE HIV. Da’hell? Someone’s been sampling too much communion wine.
Er, when was that said?
As I’ve pointed out in other threads, it might seem that the church is at least pretty solid at least in asserting that advocating abstinence is a good tool against HIV. However, things are not quite so simple. If we first take as a (fairly realistic) given that a significant proportion of people just aren’t going to be abstinent nor lifelong monogamous, then there are actually plenty of real world models in which increasing abstinence among the wrong people will actually UP the rate of new infections. Which people? Those who are probably the most likely to be affected by campaigns to promote abstinence: people with safer sexual pasts. So unless it’s 100% effective in delivering its message, it’s not entirely clear that advocating abstinence necessarily helps decrease the incidence of infection. It could increase or decrease it, depending on the differential of what groups of people respond to the message.
LaurAnge
I didn’t. Daniel did. He was not content with letting me leave in peace. His obsession with me is so manifestly overpowering that he has even opened a whole new Is Lib Taking His Meds? thread.
Apos
To make the point pertinent to this thread, a thread that is about people of faith. In fact, that’s how I explained it originally — something to this effect: “just as you feel tweaked when people call you so-and-so, so do people of faith…”. It was the second clause of an analogy.
I hold you in the highest intellectual esteem, in that lofty category with Spiritus Mundi and others whom I consider to have the very sharpest mental acumen.
It did not begin that way. When you came into the OA thread, where I first encountered you, your syntax and composition were so poor that I could barely comprehend your posts. I had pretty much dismissed you as a troll. But you persevered. You worked to improve your delivery and your style. You succeeded. And there is nothing that a libertarian admires more than the application of hard work and struggle to achieve a higher level of existence.
I do believe that you still do not listen thoroughly, and that you sometimes zero in on something irrelevant, as I think you’ve done here — I agree with you, but why do you have mustard on your tie? 
In short, I greatly value and admire you.
Erm…unless the mods changed the title early on and didn’t mention it, that thread is called Is Libertarian All Right?. And the first mention of “meds” there is yours, way down the first page. And the OP not only is fairly benign, but clearly states that the only reason for the new thread is to prevent the hijack of this one (to which I’m now contributing – sorry!).
This is exactly the sort of thing that causes people to ask if you’re all right, y’know.
I was poking fun of his thread: hence, the title. And you’re wrong — the reason (a couple of) people are asking whether I’m all right is because such an apoplanesis is the pinnacle of their mental accuity.
I think you’ll find it’s more of a parecbasis, as I brought it up only to give you a chance to offer an alternative explanation for your behavior. But hey, you’re the psychic here.
Daniel