lightbringer
TOL Subscriber
Squabbling is natural here, boobs and nipples takes it to the adult section of the video store....wonder if the migration will continue to full X rated?
Trolls and Attention Whores
- Thread starter rainee
- Start date
- Status
Squabbling is natural here, boobs and nipples takes it to the adult section of the video store....wonder if the migration will continue to full X rated?
Profanity. And a twofer in one sentence, no less. That's not going to look good on the resume.
Right, because everyone else is creepy and wrong. Got it.
You think? No, really, do you?
And brave and generous too...well, you darn well would be if not for everyone else! :IA:
Uh-huh. So that's a "never going to give a cent" then.
How do you feel about tight fitting jackets?
I'm about to do it again (though I don't recall doing it prior): cursing over disagreements on a Christian forum wall isn't a really solid sign that you have your Christian example thing down pat. :nono:
So your generosity is restrained then. You should introduce it to your temper sometime.
lightbringer
TOL Subscriber
Oh yeah, as a reminder....TOL-A-Thon is on.....Donate, or forever become a heathen!
That should have followed: let's get together...if you're a Disney fan.
I take responsibility for every word I type. Now as much fun as I'm having with you back, the cursing has to go. That would be you stepping up to the responsibility plate. Other than that, swing away. I won't flinch. I promise.
Nah. My tastes and opinions have been rather carefully cultivated and I've always been a creature of reflection. So I wouldn't say that word is aptly used in relation. If you want more applicable insult, here are several closer to home...intellectually arrogant, to begin the list....a tendency towards personal vanity and self importance. I don't cheek turn well in any sense...stubborn, hard hearted when it comes to certain offenses...a cultural snob, though I'm working through that with the help of Lyle Lovett and country music...I can give you any number of faults, if you're interested.
If you've learned that lesson I almost feel like weeping.
I'm nearly giddy anticipating your self application.You must have the worst dictionary imaginable. I stand behind anything I write. I step up and defend, illustrate and argue. I even attempt to reason with people who show no real indication they have the desire or capacity to return the favor.
You should write that one down before somebody else thinks of it.
lain:TH claims to be a lawyer. An impartial lawyer is a virtual contradiction in terms. You cannot expect him to react outside of his conditioning. If you were up on charges, would you want to hire an impartial lawyer? No, you need someone capable of twisting facts. Nuff said. Either expect that you will always be wrong or avoid him. It is the lay of the land.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
If you're unconvinced on that part, inquire with AMR, who has seen a photo of my S.Ct. Cert. :e4e:
Always happy to settle your mind.
In practice that's exactly right. Kudos. A lawyer isn't meant to be impartial. That's the jury's job. Now a good one, one who means to win his case more often than not, is skilled at arguing every side of an issue and not merely to the point of finding its faults. That's the common problem with people who lack the training. Even the broader minded mostly go as far into another side of an issue as they need to justify their own.
Only if by conditioning you mean training and by training you mean the application of critical thought through analysis. That's right.
That isn't what a lawyer does, which you'd understand with a bit more focused study. A common misconception, but a misconception nonetheless.
So you're suggesting you argue when you don't think you're right? Which one was that post? I must have missed it.
Hey, bring your bat and ball and step up to the plate. That's what I do. If you don't have the stomach or nerves or sense of humor to let you enjoy the process take up Wii Yoga (which you should really do anyway, because it's fun and stretching is important :thumb
.
I'm okay
but
I would like to see you make more of an effort to get along
you are fighting too many battles
and
that is not fun
I would like to see you have a little more fun
I have trouble with many here
and
just put them on ignore
but
with the rest I do attempt a dialogue
and
most of the time it is not successful
but
the few times it works makes all the effort worth the while
If you're unconvinced on that part, inquire with AMR, who has seen a photo of my S.Ct. Cert. :e4e:
Always happy to settle your mind.
In practice that's exactly right. Kudos. A lawyer isn't meant to be impartial. That's the jury's job. Now a good one, one who means to win his case more often than not, is skilled at arguing every side of an issue and not merely to the point of finding its faults. That's the common problem with people who lack the training. Even the broader minded mostly go as far into another side of an issue as they need to justify their own.
Only if by conditioning you mean training and by training you mean the application of critical thought through analysis. That's right.
That isn't what a lawyer does, which you'd understand with a bit more focused study. A common misconception, but a misconception nonetheless.
So you're suggesting you argue when you don't think you're right? Which one was that post? I must have missed it.
Hey, bring your bat and ball and step up to the plate. That's what I do. If you don't have the stomach or nerves or sense of humor to let you enjoy the process take up Wii Yoga (which you should really do anyway, because it's fun and stretching is important :thumb
TH
Again, critical thinking is one thing and New Age critical thinking is another.
Criminal lawyers and politicians are the same. They have a desired conclusion and seek selective facts and their interpretations to further their conclusion.
But I at least distinguish between an argument which is an expression of ignorance and a discussion which is an expression of intelligence. A person can believe they win and argument but how does one win a discussion? Sometimes an argument is fun and sometimes only a discussion is appropriate. How to know the difference?
That attitude is why certain topics could never be posted. They require more than argument and sarcasm. they require being open to both understanding and consideration.
For example, I would never participate in a nasty volatile thread on Silent Scream for the sake of some women here and in respect to the unborn fighting for life. Such a topic requires a different setting than one that invites bats, balls, and sledgehammers. It requires that strange forgotten word "consideration" that too often vanishes as one asserts how right they are.
For those that don't know what I mean by Silent Scream, you can learn here:
http://scottthong.wordpress.com/200...sound-video-of-a-baby-being-brutally-aborted/
And again, as the only one of us who has been trained in the first and could then distinguish it from the latter, were the latter more than imaginative hooey, so what?
Only if you don't know what either of them does. There are parallels, but that's hardly the same thing.
Rather, a criminal defense attorney has two obligations. The first is to justice and the second to his client. In doing his duty to his client, the attorney is restricted by ethic and the rules of civil procedure. If he zealously prosecutes his client's case within those he serves justice. If he doesn't he is asking for censure and disbarment.
Politicians serve their constituency and their conscience. And they tend to reflect both. If they fail the former they can be removed from office. If they fail the latter they will likely be reelected...
Ironically enough, a profoundly ignorant assertion.
lain: I'll go into why in a moment.The same way you get down off of an elephant.
Couldn't agree more. And sometimes they're mostly the one with elements of the latter...a bit like our discussion of art, which had moments of disagreement relating to particular points.
I don't think anyone really confuses the two. And I doubt many are ever involved in purely one thing or the other, outside of more formal settings.
That attitude being you must be willing and able to defend a point you raise? Swell, you shouldn't raise it if you can't establish and/or defend it.
Sarcasm is a rhetorical device invited by an insufficiency on the part of the proponent of an idea. Mostly I find people who decry it aren't particularly clever and are looking to level the field. I don't believe in intellectual affirmative action.
The problem with that is that many a fool would offer his foolishness and seek to protect it from the rigors of examination that comes with argument by hiding it under the protective skirt of discourse.
Now we may discuss God or art or life and our perspectives, but the moment one of us insists that a thing is so, understanding the other takes a different view, he has begun an argument, at least on that point. And then it's time to approach the plate. Or, if you prefer tee ball, stick to the discourse sans challenge.
:e4e:
Last edited:
Thunder's Muse
Well-known member
I didn't say 'victim mode', I said 'victim identity'...meaning that in a conflict, you identify youself as the victim, despite your own input into the conflict.
A perfect example of what I'm talking about.
It's always other people's actions. Never your own.
I like to think I do, Rainee. But which one of us accused the other of lying? Which one of us is throwing insults? Perhaps you reveal your own heart, too.
Why do you do that, Rainee? Accuse someone of lying and then insult them? You can't help it? I do not want to feel sorry for you. OK?
I'm not acting against my conscience, cause I didn't do anything wrong, Rainee.
You on the other hand accused me of lying and then insulted me.
And yet, I'm picking on you and once again, you are the victim.
The pattern of thinking is very clear and I'm not one bit surprised you can't see it.
And again, as the only one of us who has been trained in the first and could then distinguish it from the latter, were the latter more than imaginative hooey, so what?
Only if you don't know what either of them does. There are parallels, but that's hardly the same thing.
Rather, a criminal defense attorney has two obligations. The first is to justice and the second to his client. In doing his duty to his client, the attorney is restricted by ethic and the rules of civil procedure. If he zealously prosecutes his client's case within those he serves justice. If he doesn't he is asking for censure and disbarment.
Politicians serve their constituency and their conscience. And they tend to reflect both. If they fail the former they can be removed from office. If they fail the latter they will likely be reelected...
Ironically enough, a profoundly ignorant assertion.
The same way you get down off of an elephant.
Couldn't agree more. And sometimes they're mostly the one with elements of the latter...a bit like our discussion of art, which had moments of disagreement relating to particular points.
I don't think anyone really confuses the two. And I doubt many are ever involved in purely one thing or the other, outside of more formal settings.
That attitude being you must be willing and able to defend a point you raise? Swell, you shouldn't raise it if you can't establish and/or defend it.
Sarcasm is a rhetorical device invited by an insufficiency on the part of the proponent of an idea. Mostly I find people who decry it aren't particularly clever and are looking to level the field. I don't believe in intellectual affirmative action.
The problem with that is that many a fool would offer his foolishness and seek to protect it from the rigors of examination that comes with argument by hiding it under the protective skirt of discourse.
Now we may discuss God or art or life and our perspectives, but the moment one of us insists that a thing is so, understanding the other takes a different view, he has begun an argument, at least on that point. And then it's time to approach the plate. Or, if you prefer tee ball, stick to the discourse sans challenge.
:e4e:
That is your trouble; you've been trained. You've become incapable of witnessing your own hypocrisy
"It seems to me that at this time we need education in the obvious more than investigation of the obscure." Mark Twain
Very true Mr. Clemens. But it requires getting rid of this new age critical thinking. That won't be easy since ones self importance becomes quickly addicted to it.
That is the best one yet. it should be framed and preserved in the official vault of TOL classics.
Politicians serve their conscience and criminal lawyers serve justice. The logical results of New Age critical thinking. You'd better wean yourself off of the Obama Kool-aid and get back to good old fashioned scotch.
How does a jackass get down off of an elephant?
To the contrary, they are confused all the time. This confusion is a normal result of education and its emphasis on self esteem. How many would value the following as expressed in Buddhist teaching
http://www.esolibris.com/articles/buddhism/buddhism_speech.php
For many of us, the most difficult part of practicing right speech lies in how we express our sense of humor. Especially here in America, we're used to getting laughs with exaggeration, sarcasm, group stereotypes, and pure silliness -- all classic examples of wrong speech. If people get used to these sorts of careless humor, they stop listening carefully to what we say. In this way, we cheapen our own discourse. Actually, there's enough irony in the state of the world that we don't need to exaggerate or be sarcastic. The greatest humorists are the ones who simply make us look directly at the way things are.
We don't value what right speech furthers so easily drift into the usual.
That is why I could only discuss baby killing with certain people. It requires being open to the difference between emotional and logical understanding. New Age critical thinking would never allow for the united experience of these two faculties of understanding.
“A sarcastic person has a superiority complex that can be cured only by the honesty of humility.” Lawrence G. Lovasik (Slovak Priest b.1913)
Even back then the Slovak Priest had you figured out.
This is why you could never understand the dear lady. You would not be capable of a quality of reason you deny yourself that could even refer to baby killing. You would be too busy rationalizing. Simone Weil describes it in a simple poem.
Rather, I stand ready to defend against a charge you can only lay without foundation and support singularly with declaration.
It is, as is so much of what you write, the best evidence against you and the notion that you know what it is you're talking so much about.
Another bout of Bartlett's Syndrome then...it's like Tourette's only with less of a point.
He can't really hear you, you know. And as a literary device that one stopped being more than painful around the time the general public dropped "thee" from the menu selection.
lain:You threw out a quote that without attempting to make a connective point, bowed to it, and then spouted the same nonsense you everywhere set out and nowhere distinguish. In short, you are a boiling cauldron of rock soup.
No, just actual, honest answers if you set out the whole and stop doing the blind men with a snake routine.
Good grief, you must have run out of talking points on this bit and automatically switched to your political screed. Someone hit the reset. I think it's located on his forehead.
Which are you missing--the mirror, the elephant, or both?
Else--crude, witless and clueless...so quintessential you then. :thumb: You do realize that it only underscores your failure to get the point set inside the joke you also failed to grasp, don't you...of course you don't. :chuckle:
I omit the secondary bout of BS...and I suspect you spend so much of your time quoting others because you have so very little to say for yourself. Though given what does proceed from your fingertips when you take a fumbling stab at the coherent I should perhaps be less censuring in tone and applaud the distractions.
Where I'd say you're living proof one need not have any appreciable education to still struggle with self aggrandizement in a way that would make Ahab blush and forget the whale.
Stop pluralizing yourself. It's annoying.
Abortion. Or do you call genocide "lots of grown people killing?" And I've been taking on that evil for decades.
That's literally a very stupid thing to say. And that's also how I feel about it.
lain:You do realize that Twain was famous for his sarcasm, don't you...as were a large number of some of the most widely acclaimed authors in English literature. But just this once, to play along for pity's sake--
"Sarcasm: the last refuge of modest and chaste-souled people when the privacy of their soul is coarsely and intrusively invaded."
Fyodor Dostoevsky
Good heavens, the Bartlett's is spreading. Somebody call a librarian.
oly:Even dead he has twice your wit.
lain:
Last edited:
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Nick_A said:
Yup, I can confirm that TH is an attorney in good standing before the State Bar of his domicile. So, N/A, you can drop the "claims to be a lawyer" innuendo. :squint:
AMR
Uh oh ... that means NA will have to find something else to insult TH for. Hopefully he will pick something meaningful ... like making fun of his avatar.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
rainee. One thing you can't level at me is calling you names or neg repping you. Frankly I don't see the anatomical connection between the name and my avatar either but if you feel inclined to send negs my way then feel free. I think you've got problems if you're getting so personally wound up to this extent in sheer honesty.
Yep ... that is what no life cowards do when they can't handle getting back what they have dished out.
You, a relatively new member, came to this board on your own. I, a long time member, who has been contributing to TOL for years, will answer any and all of your posts as I see fit, TrollZilla.
You are not encouraging bad behavior ... you are an attention-seeking, drama queen with no life. For you, even bad attention is better than no attention at all.
IF you don't like it, you should either grow up and start behaving like a sane person or shut up about it.
Oh nooooo ... unlike you, I am not a sneaky, slivering snake who hides behind the rep system. The only time I neg rep others is when they are petty instigators who start with the neg repping. And so you know, Raibee ... I (and I am sure others) will be perfectly happy to play tit for tat on the repping.
For every neg rep you give me, I am going to make it my mission to hand out twice to thrice as many neg reps back.
Being that YOU have the capability to delete any thread you author, everything you posted above is just more Raibee lies.
Liar. You gave AB a neg rep because that is ALL you are capable of contributing to this forum. You do NOT debate abortion, the death penalty, the existence of your God, homosexuality, hate crime, etc.
All you do is drone on about a situation that YOU created. BTW, awhile back you were ranting at Knight and asking to be banned, but still yet, here you are ... signing in and exchanging words with the very people you claim are bullying you. Then you wonder why we consider you an attention-seeking troll.
I ALREADY addressed what *you* are. IF your feeble mind has already forgotten, feel free to reread the post:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2421306&postcount=271
Straight laced, eh? And here I was thinking that maybe you ran out of your meds and actually HAD an excuse for behaving like such an attention seeking troll.
Whew, glad that's cleared up!
What Raibee reallllly means to say is: "Arthur, you are a big mean doody head! How dare you not side with me when I stuck my big nose in a situation that was none of my concern and then went on to excuse lies AFTER the situation was explained to me, REPEATEDLY, in detail".
Nah, AB is too much of a sweetheart to treat you as I do (the way you deserve to be treated) and he is too sane to act as YOU do.
However, unlike you, he is not a pathetic, attention seeking liar and will always stand up for principle. The principle was never about bullying poor little SD ... but rather about uniting against a liar.
What is very telling is that you stuck your neck out for her and where is she? She certainly isn't sticking her neck out for YOU. :chuckle: However, unlike you, at least she isn't making it her mission to pick fights with a bunch of anonymous strangers on an internet forum.
Good job! You have officially become the number one troll on TOL! :thumb:
- Status