My guess is because you thought you knew what my arguments were, so you answered them without stopping to read my posts with any degree of care.
OK.
May a reasonable Jew accept as true any historical facts about the existence of Socrates?
and
Jeez, Scott, you really don’t have the vaguest clue do you? **Bricker ** knew more than you did about the topic, he had to constantly repost questions attempting to clarify your position, and at the end of it all I learned much more from him than from you. Hate to break it to you, but this means that Bricker “won”. He was clear, got his point across, and educated other participants and lurkers. You were confusing, unclear, and made my head hurt.
Take this from someone who is not on Bricker’s “side”–being as he’s a religious conservative and I’m an atheistic independent*. Still, I have to admire Bricker’s willingness to debate someone as totally clueless as you appear to be. I’m more likely to be on your side in a debate, Scott, but you do nothing to advance “our” positions–you just make us look bad.
Regarding **Scott’**s intelligence; just because you’re educated, doesn’t mean you’re smart. Scott, you may very well have gone to college, taught(!) in summer school, etc. However, you come across as an idiot in debates because you’re posts are unclear, not on topic, filled with irritating asides, and mostly unreadable. This in addition to being factually incorrect in many instances.
Please, consider that if most of us tell you that you are coming across badly and are not “winning” us over to your side of issues (especially when we start on your side!!!), you may need re-assess your posting style. And quit over-using the [del]stupid[/del] fucking [del] feature. It’s irritating and rarely adds anything to your post. Like many things, moderation is key.
- I shouldn’t have to pull out my “not a conservative” card to get you to listen to me, but I think you’ll ignore me otherwise. Who am I kidding? You’re going to ignore me either way.
Duke of Rat, I think it’s more a problem of him refusing or being unable to understand, absorb or accept anything that disagrees with his predetermined view. He only sees and uses things that he thinks support his views, and he’s not very good at correctly identifying those.
Uh stretch? We kind of gave up trying to help Scott about ten pages ago. Pissin’ in the wind and all that. When **Left Hand of Dorkness ** bailed we all realized it was a total non-starter. All but Scott, that is.
Hell, I’m just following it so that I can sneak in when everyone leasts expects it and win the thread.
Yeah, but he’s still saying he won the debate with Bricker. I want Bricker to know that some of us remember the thread and actually got something out of it. Y’know, a little appreciation for Bricker, a little bit of explaining things to Scott.
Since I don’t post from work (I’m home today), I’d rarely get to particpate in threads if I don’t just put in my two cents late in the game. Besides, aren’t we ready for the thread to die? My presence ensures it.
Let me see if I recall what happened. I claimed I found it funny that any jew could believe in jesus. You asked me for clarification. I explained. You tried, and failed to show how they could believe in jesus after all, after all. Is that right, or do I recall a different discussion?
No, a jew, or any other person may not. You see, there is no historical proof. From wiki :
It appears I am wrong about wives of aliens being listed under the act. However, I am suspending judgment till I read more on the issue in the bookstore. However, it seems like if the census is responsible for registration of those with Japanese ancestry, then it is still true that registration can lead to round ups.
But, look at the sign in the wiki article you linked to. Clearly, while the plan wording of the act would apply only to enemies, the existence of the act itself was used as justification to round up all people of Japanese ancestry.
True, he used the word “alien” later in the text, but the order clearly was to give the military all the power they wanted to round people up.
[QUOTE=stretch]
Tell me, what do you think his position on the subject was?
No. For one thing, I can not think of a single time I used it that was not appropriate. Thus, there is no “overuse” Besides, I was the one to suggest it’s existence. By using it, I spread awareness of it. It is a tool like any other, and people should know about it.
Where did you get this from. ? I don’t listen to Excalibre, not because I somehow think he is a conservative, but because I just plain don’t like him.
Wow, I’m like a celebrity now–the guy that made everyone give up on Scott!
Sweet.
I’m reading along, because this is bizarre and fascinating, and because people are pretty damned funny. Especially Scott.
Daniel
And I do appreciate it. Thanks much…
[del]That is the most singularly asinine generalization I’ve ever seen emerge from the nib of your digital “pen”, and considering your fetish-like predilection for singularly asinine generalizations, that’s quite an achievement indeed. Anything can be overused - moderation in all things is the key. Perhaps you might try using the del tag less, and your brain a little more.[/del]
Bull.
Holy crap, my lawn chair just collapsed on me. Rusted clean through from exposure to the elements.
And my ice is melted. And I’m out of beer.
Mods, please close this thread!
I was not a party to the discussion you recall.
The phrase “believe in Jesus” is hopelessly mired in ambiguity. A person may believe in the historical existence of Jesus without remotely accepting any supernatural claims about him as true. This was one of the problems in that disucssion: you kept returning to the savior issue, when I was simply exploring whether, historically, there were any claims about Jesus that could reasonably be believed.
You have done more in THIS thread to answer that question than you managed in the original thread. For this, I thank you.
On accepting historical facts about Socrates:
So, as between Socrates and Jesus, which would say is more established, historically speaking?
Mods, please do not close this thread. I have asked Rick for a clarification of what he believed that thread was about. I have also stated that I think that the vast majority of discussion I have with him end with his burying his head in the sand in regards to holes in his logic. (No, I don’t do that. I try and show how I was logical to hold a certain position in the first place.). I am still awaiting a reply, or cites.
::head explodes::
I believe you recall the thread, but if that’s what you got out of your debate with **Bricker ** you are [del]stupid[/del] [del]really stupid[/del] [del]really, really, stupid[/del] a fucking idiot.
PS: Thanks for not replying to any of the actual points I made. And the [del] feature can be overused as illustrated many times above.
:dubious: I would have to say neither of them.
Don’t worry Scott, nobody’s gonna close this thread on my say-so.
. . . but perhaps a time-out so I can run to the loo and not miss anything?
It’s not often you see a pittee say that! I must say, Scott, I am impressed with your composure in the face of such an overwhelming onslaught. I don’t think I have ever seen anyone get his ass handed to him so thoroughly and still come back to say “Thank you sir, may I have another?”
Wheeeeeeeeeeee!!!
There you go, Bricker. They’re tied. For second. Guess who’s first?
First, your point that I am hard to read has been addressed already. I admitted I need to be much more clear. Second, I am not saying it is not possible to overuse the feature. Instead, I am saying that I, personally, have never used it gratuitously.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
You’re a real fuckstick.