A message for Eric.

Nekochan wrote:

Lurch wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

Lurch wrote:

Bob wrote:

Lurch wrote:For some reason I thought everything was in-bounds here..
I didn't see it as being one sided, I saw it as one side not having a defense..

I've never seen or heard about anything yet that doesn't deserve a defense.
If we're gonna talk about the guarantee of free expres​sion(and don't worry I value that too) then everything deserving a defense is a principle just as fundamental as free expression in our society.
Both are important, lurch.

The question from WTM about why he was never offended by other religions being trashed was valid..
And I would like to hear the defense of why money was secretly moved to cover the cost of their crimes against children..

WTM's comment was that Eric participated in the trashing of other religions.

Incorrect.. I reread it after GR's post and he never said Anything about Eric bad talking other religions, just a question on why he was never upset with others doing it..

Eric doesn't participate in the threads where there is mugslinging about politics or about religion. I don't know why you think it's his burden to defend all religions. He isn't even defending his own beliefs, he's just had enough of the hatefulness.

Sal wrote:
I'm not an atheist.

Lurch wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

Lurch wrote:

Bob wrote:

Lurch wrote:For some reason I thought everything was in-bounds here..
I didn't see it as being one sided, I saw it as one side not having a defense..

I've never seen or heard about anything yet that doesn't deserve a defense.
If we're gonna talk about the guarantee of free expres​sion(and don't worry I value that too) then everything deserving a defense is a principle just as fundamental as free expression in our society.
Both are important, lurch.

The question from WTM about why he was never offended by other religions being trashed was valid..
And I would like to hear the defense of why money was secretly moved to cover the cost of their crimes against children..

WTM's comment was that Eric participated in the trashing of other religions.

Incorrect.. I reread it after GR's post and he never said Anything about Eric bad talking other religions, just a question on why he was never upset with others doing it..

Bob wrote:

Sal wrote:
I'm not an atheist.

What is your religion?

Bob wrote:

Sal wrote:
I'm not an atheist.

What is your religion?

W_T_M wrote:
Start with your buddy GR.

His nose went way outta joint and up my ass because I refused to explain or defend my faith in God.

Funny....I didn't see any of you pious folk jumping in to defend MY faith, but now you're outraged...?

Pharisee.

Lurch wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

Lurch wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

Lurch wrote:

Bob wrote:

Lurch wrote:For some reason I thought everything was in-bounds here..
I didn't see it as being one sided, I saw it as one side not having a defense..

I've never seen or heard about anything yet that doesn't deserve a defense.
If we're gonna talk about the guarantee of free expres​sion(and don't worry I value that too) then everything deserving a defense is a principle just as fundamental as free expression in our society.
Both are important, lurch.

The question from WTM about why he was never offended by other religions being trashed was valid..
And I would like to hear the defense of why money was secretly moved to cover the cost of their crimes against children..

WTM's comment was that Eric participated in the trashing of other religions.

Incorrect.. I reread it after GR's post and he never said Anything about Eric bad talking other religions, just a question on why he was never upset with others doing it..

Eric doesn't participate in the threads where there is mugslinging about politics or about religion. I don't know why you think it's his burden to defend all religions. He isn't even defending his own beliefs, he's just had enough of the hatefulness.

Show me where I said it was his burden to defend any fairy tale..
I just mentioned that it was a question from WTM about why he never got upset with other religions being trashed.. He Never said Eric was involved in it..

Lurch wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

Lurch wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

Lurch wrote:

Bob wrote:

Lurch wrote:For some reason I thought everything was in-bounds here..
I didn't see it as being one sided, I saw it as one side not having a defense..

I've never seen or heard about anything yet that doesn't deserve a defense.
If we're gonna talk about the guarantee of free expres​sion(and don't worry I value that too) then everything deserving a defense is a principle just as fundamental as free expression in our society.
Both are important, lurch.

The question from WTM about why he was never offended by other religions being trashed was valid..
And I would like to hear the defense of why money was secretly moved to cover the cost of their crimes against children..

WTM's comment was that Eric participated in the trashing of other religions.

Incorrect.. I reread it after GR's post and he never said Anything about Eric bad talking other religions, just a question on why he was never upset with others doing it..

Eric doesn't participate in the threads where there is mugslinging about politics or about religion. I don't know why you think it's his burden to defend all religions. He isn't even defending his own beliefs, he's just had enough of the hatefulness.

Show me where I said it was his burden to defend any fairy tale..
I just mentioned that it was a question from WTM about why he never got upset with other religions being trashed.. He Never said Eric was involved in it..

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

W_T_M wrote:
Start with your buddy GR.

His nose went way outta joint and up my ass because I refused to explain or defend my faith in God.

Funny....I didn't see any of you pious folk jumping in to defend MY faith, but now you're outraged...?

Pharisee.

There you go again, I was not in any way attempting to get you to defend you religion, I was questioning your stupid post about firing the pope. Nothing more, nothing less. I cannot help it if you read something into my posts as well as others that was not intended. You have a real comprehension issue.

Sal wrote: I'll continue to point out and ridicule the many, many sins of the Church at every opportunity.

He could choose to defend his church

Nekochan wrote:

Lurch wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

Lurch wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

Lurch wrote:

Bob wrote:

Lurch wrote:For some reason I thought everything was in-bounds here..
I didn't see it as being one sided, I saw it as one side not having a defense..

I've never seen or heard about anything yet that doesn't deserve a defense.
If we're gonna talk about the guarantee of free expres​sion(and don't worry I value that too) then everything deserving a defense is a principle just as fundamental as free expression in our society.
Both are important, lurch.

The question from WTM about why he was never offended by other religions being trashed was valid..
And I would like to hear the defense of why money was secretly moved to cover the cost of their crimes against children..

WTM's comment was that Eric participated in the trashing of other religions.

Incorrect.. I reread it after GR's post and he never said Anything about Eric bad talking other religions, just a question on why he was never upset with others doing it..

Eric doesn't participate in the threads where there is mugslinging about politics or about religion. I don't know why you think it's his burden to defend all religions. He isn't even defending his own beliefs, he's just had enough of the hatefulness.

Show me where I said it was his burden to defend any fairy tale..
I just mentioned that it was a question from WTM about why he never got upset with other religions being trashed.. He Never said Eric was involved in it..

I didn't say that he did say Eric was involved. My point is that Eric does not participate in mugslinging. In case you haven't noticed, Eirc doesn't post on those type threads whether it's Obama trashing, Bush trashing, Allah trashing or Jesus trashing. Anyway, how do you know he didn't get upset by other things that have been posted? And what difference does it make if he says he's offended by every hateful post on here? A lot of things on this forum offend me but I usually skip on over it. But Eric was personally offended by the thread Sal started and it's probably just the final straw for him. That's my guess anyway. Everyone has a weak spot, a thing that upsets them. Do you understand this? Bob is correct. That thread Sal started had NO redeeming value. Zero, other than to upset Catholics. Eric doesn't go around on here preaching to everyone and his religion seems to be mostly a private thing for him. But he certainly has reason to be offended by what Sal posted.

Joanimaroni wrote:

Lurch wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

Lurch wrote:

Bob wrote:

Lurch wrote:For some reason I thought everything was in-bounds here..
I didn't see it as being one sided, I saw it as one side not having a defense..

I've never seen or heard about anything yet that doesn't deserve a defense.
If we're gonna talk about the guarantee of free expres​sion(and don't worry I value that too) then everything deserving a defense is a principle just as fundamental as free expression in our society.
Both are important, lurch.

The question from WTM about why he was never offended by other religions being trashed was valid..
And I would like to hear the defense of why money was secretly moved to cover the cost of their crimes against children..

WTM's comment was that Eric participated in the trashing of other religions.

Incorrect.. I reread it after GR's post and he never said Anything about Eric bad talking other religions, just a question on why he was never upset with others doing it..

I didn't copy the post....but the wording was to the effect Eric did not mind demonizing Muslims.

Lurch wrote:

Who is the judge on what threads have value when the site claims everything is in-bounds? There are plenty of others on here that post threads just to get the same reaction.

Bob wrote:

Sal wrote: I'll continue to point out and ridicule the many, many sins of the Church at every opportunity.

He could choose to defend his church

But shouldn't we have the same chance to ridicule your religion? Are you so ashamed of your religion that you won't even tell us what it is? lol

Lurch wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

Lurch wrote:

Nekochan wrote:

Lurch wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

Lurch wrote:

Bob wrote:

Lurch wrote:For some reason I thought everything was in-bounds here..
I didn't see it as being one sided, I saw it as one side not having a defense..

I've never seen or heard about anything yet that doesn't deserve a defense.
If we're gonna talk about the guarantee of free expres​sion(and don't worry I value that too) then everything deserving a defense is a principle just as fundamental as free expression in our society.
Both are important, lurch.

The question from WTM about why he was never offended by other religions being trashed was valid..
And I would like to hear the defense of why money was secretly moved to cover the cost of their crimes against children..

WTM's comment was that Eric participated in the trashing of other religions.

Incorrect.. I reread it after GR's post and he never said Anything about Eric bad talking other religions, just a question on why he was never upset with others doing it..

Eric doesn't participate in the threads where there is mugslinging about politics or about religion. I don't know why you think it's his burden to defend all religions. He isn't even defending his own beliefs, he's just had enough of the hatefulness.

Show me where I said it was his burden to defend any fairy tale..
I just mentioned that it was a question from WTM about why he never got upset with other religions being trashed.. He Never said Eric was involved in it..

I didn't say that he did say Eric was involved. My point is that Eric does not participate in mugslinging. In case you haven't noticed, Eirc doesn't post on those type threads whether it's Obama trashing, Bush trashing, Allah trashing or Jesus trashing. Anyway, how do you know he didn't get upset by other things that have been posted? And what difference does it make if he says he's offended by every hateful post on here? A lot of things on this forum offend me but I usually skip on over it. But Eric was personally offended by the thread Sal started and it's probably just the final straw for him. That's my guess anyway. Everyone has a weak spot, a thing that upsets them. Do you understand this? Bob is correct. That thread Sal started had NO redeeming value. Zero, other than to upset Catholics. Eric doesn't go around on here preaching to everyone and his religion seems to be mostly a private thing for him. But he certainly has reason to be offended by what Sal posted.

Who is the judge on what threads have value when the site claims everything is in-bounds? There are plenty of others on here that post threads just to get the same reaction..

Sal wrote:FTR, if Yo chooses to leave, I'll be sorry to see him go.

I think that he's an asset to the forum.

But, I'll continue to point out and ridicule the many, many sins of the Church at every opportunity.

He could choose to defend his church, or he could choose to stay away from those threads.

He can also choose to take his ball and go home.

I'll miss his contributions, but it's no skin off my nose.

Lurch wrote:For some reason I thought everything was in-bounds here..
I didn't see it as being one sided, I saw it as one side not having a defense..

Yomama wrote:Everything is in bounds, but Eric doesn't have to put up with it. We all make decisions. Mine is to keep from being insulted by thoughtless people.

Now, if Boards will kindly send me a confirmation e-mail so I can officially quit this garbage heap, I will do so. Supposedly, my request to leave is only good for 24 hours, and the clock is ticking.

It's not just Sal. Dreams pissed me off the other night too with her ridicule of Catholics. Screw it. I don't have to put up with it and I am done with it.

This is my last post. I'm not coming back. To those people that were nice to me, thank you.

Lurch wrote:

Sal wrote:FTR, if Yo chooses to leave, I'll be sorry to see him go.

I think that he's an asset to the forum.

But, I'll continue to point out and ridicule the many, many sins of the Church at every opportunity.

He could choose to defend his church, or he could choose to stay away from those threads.

He can also choose to take his ball and go home.

I'll miss his contributions, but it's no skin off my nose.

I think some body's faith just isn't strong enough to handle the truth or defend a lie..

Sal wrote:

I already told you, I'm an optimistic agnostic.

Ridicule away.

Bob wrote:

Lurch wrote:

Who is the judge on what threads have value when the site claims everything is in-bounds? There are plenty of others on here that post threads just to get the same reaction.

That's a valid question. And the answer can only come from the person who deleted the thread.

So now we need to know two things. One, what Sal's religion is. And two, why bds made the decision to dump the thread.

Lurch wrote:

Sal wrote:FTR, if Yo chooses to leave, I'll be sorry to see him go.

I think that he's an asset to the forum.

But, I'll continue to point out and ridicule the many, many sins of the Church at every opportunity.

He could choose to defend his church, or he could choose to stay away from those threads.

He can also choose to take his ball and go home.

I'll miss his contributions, but it's no skin off my nose.

I think some body's faith just isn't strong enough to handle the truth or defend a lie..

Bob wrote:

Sal wrote:

I already told you, I'm an optimistic agnostic.

Ridicule away.

Optimistic about what exactly?