Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Turin ShroudFollow

#77 Apr 04 2004 at 4:58 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
You know, I'm at a loss here. On the one hand, every fiber of my being shouts out "No one could possibly be this stupid." On the other hand I feel this ovewhelming amount of pity for you, much as I would for a confused retarded kid trying to find his way home from the airport. Let me see if I can dumb this down enough for you to comprehend it:

Quote:

Are you accusing me of misquoting you? Did you not state that earlier? If so please provide the corrected quote and I will without hesitation apologize.

No, I'm accusing you of not understanding the language I guess. The quote you've pulled about three times now says "You could etc.." Which means, hypothetically, as you've previously pointed out, one could do something. For example.

You could seek help for your obvious mental handicap and I'd still belittle you.

Now, MORON, is there anything about the above phrase that indicates that you would have allready sought help? You see the word "could" implies that something has not happened yet. I realize it looks a lot like the word "cloud" to you which means big white fluffy things that rain comes out of, so it's confusing, but I'd hope that it's clear now.


Quote:

However, that ISN'T going to happen because you did state it.

Indeed. It'd be nice if you read it accurately. However, that ISN'T going to happen because you're mentally crippled in some signifigant way I'm unaware of I guess.


Quote:

All I'm asking is that you substantiate your assertion with evidence.

What assertion? That you could prove that Christer Bunny wasn't real Christians would still think he was? That's going to be tough to prove, considering I'm not a Christian, but Empyre is and has posted multiple times on this thread that it wouldn't matter to him, he'd still believe.

THUS QED I've proved my assertion. Yay, I win.

Quote:

Is that so hard?

Nope, just did it.


Quote:

You apparently didn't think so when you made the statement, as "conclusively prove beyond any rational doubt" sounds pretty confident to me.

Let me say this again LEARN TO READ. You could spend thirty years learning how to read and still not understand the meaning of the word could. SEE! That doesn't mean you have spent thirty years, now does it?

This sinking in yet, Stephen Hawking?


Quote:

Show us the evidence that gives you this confidence. You seem so sure that an "imbecile" like me is completely wrong, while you're right, so PROVE it. Give your proof for everyone to read.

Allready did. Imbicille.

You're going to realize that at some point while reading this and look back and say *********** what an ingorant *** I am" and then probably stop posting. I look forward to it with great anticipation.


Quote:

Oh, and I'm pretty sure that I remember at least one other post prior to mine asking you to give your "conclusive proof beyond a rational doubt" of the non existence of Christ. So I'm not the only one who thinks you've made that assertion apparently.

Nope, you're the only one, sport.

Other people were making the point that there hasn't been definitive proof that Christer Bunny never existed. Which is I guess, the idiots attempt at arguing that he did. Considering there's no definitive proof that the Easter Bunny never existed, either that wouldn't fill me with confidence of his existence were I them. They weren't operating under the assumption that I was indicating that any such proof had been offered, merely pointing out that it hadn't been.

Not only have you missed the point of my post, you've also missed the point of other people's[b] posts. This would conclusively prove I'm afraid that it's not that I have a problem communicating, but [b]you have a problem understanding.


Forgive me if I refuse to dumb it down to second grade reading level for you.

Get it yet?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#78 Apr 04 2004 at 5:12 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Quote:
is this the same vatican that quickly scuffled away and hid accusations of reported cases of molestation? or the same vatican that used to use nuns for sexual toys? or the same vatican that had lime pits in the cellars where they would throw away children that didnt fill some religious bill of needs for the priests? yeah...there's some real substance there. you've got the power of a 1.3 watt light bulb in that arguement.

It's the same Vatican that's the oldest continuous source of authority on YOUR RELIGION, sport. Yours, not mine. I could care less if you're Catholic or not. I'd assume, personally, that you're some kind of prodestant Assemblies of God scam religion member as you don't seem bright enough to commit to what being a Catholic would require. Anyway, that's not the point. The point is that of orginisations in the world likely to have ancient documents pertaining to the existance of Christ, the Vatican would be the most likely. Signifigantly more likely than a Prodestant chruch founded at the earlist in the time of Luther, more than a thosand years after Christer Bunny.


Quote:

you act like your God's gift to the world (once again) when you're barely logics gift to the gifted.

Is this an example of "speaking in tounges"? Because I have no clue what it's supposed to mean. I'll assume it means that I'm great, in whcih case, that's kind of you thanks. In the future please send cash.

Quote:

what he's simply saying is...your saying he didn't exist. thousands say he did, and plenty of evidence suggests he did.

No, what's he saying is that he thinks I'm implying I have some sort of proof of the non-existance of Christ. He's an idiot. He needs to work on his reading comprehtnion skills. I realize why you think he meant that. It's what I thought he meant at first. It's not though. Have a look.

And there's no evidence that suggests Christer Bunny existed. Not a shred.


Quote:

prove he didn't.

Don't have to. You have to prove he did. Just like I don't have to prove the Easter Bunny doesn't really come and **** chocolate eggs in the night. If someone wanted to say that he did, it wouldn't be my job to disprove that it would be their job to prove it. The onus is on you freaks, not on the reasonable people of the world who base what they believe on evidence, not on doing what they're told.

Quote:

you seem to be the one hard bent on proving he didn't...so prove it already. we've got the shroud, we've got the gospels, we've got testimony that could be accurate.

The shroud is a proven fake. What does it take to prove that it's a fake? It's been carbon dated. It's been analyzed a thousand times. What more proof can there be?

Quote:

so far all you've got is "smash's word"..which holds as much wieght as a generic paper towel in a rain storm.

All I have is the entire history of the world. During whcih, there has been no evidence of Christ ever existing. Not once. No way, no how.

So, if you want to belive he did, fantastic. Your choice. But there's as much evidence of that as there is that the Easter Bunny comes and ***** choclate eggs.

Personally, I wouldn't base my belief system around something like that, but then I'm not an idiot. There is where we differ.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#79 Apr 04 2004 at 5:39 PM Rating: Good
**
564 posts
How about you stop insulting me long enough to answer the question put to you?

I asked a simple question, to substantiate the claim that you made earlier. Why not just give your proof of the non existence of Christ, rather than using name calling and personal insults to try and sidetrack the discussion?

You stated it could be proven beyond any reasonable doubt that Christ didn't exist. Fine, I'm asking you to prove it, plain and simple. Give us verifiable proof that Christ never existed and my next post will be an apology to you.

Continue to throw personal insults at me rather than present logical proof and I can only assume that you don't have an intellectual leg to stand on in this debate.
#80 Apr 04 2004 at 6:01 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Quote:
How about you stop insulting me long enough to answer the question put to you?

I did. Learn to read.

Quote:

I asked a simple question, to substantiate the claim that you made earlier. Why not just give your proof of the non existence of Christ, rather than using name calling and personal insults to try and sidetrack the discussion?

Read my post. Actually read it, you ignorant ****, before you claim I ahven't answered you when I have.

Quote:

You stated it could be proven beyond any reasonable doubt that Christ didn't exist.

No, *** pirate, I didn't.

LEARN

TO

READ


Quote:

Fine, I'm asking you to prove it, plain and simple. Give us verifiable proof that Christ never existed and my next post will be an apology to you.

Look, ashole, I've explained three times now that I never claimed to ahve any such proof or that it existed. There's nothing more I can do. You may as well say that I claimed I could fly around on my own power by ******** out streams of sulfuric acid because I never said that, either.

Quote:

Continue to throw personal insults at me rather than present logical proof and I can only assume that you don't have an intellectual leg to stand on in this debate.

FU'CKING READ MY LAST POST

You complete, utter, idiot. I've won this debate, QED. There isn't an argument there.

Go back.

Read what I wrote.

Then come back and apologise.

*****.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#81 Apr 04 2004 at 6:17 PM Rating: Good
**
564 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

[quote]
You stated it could be proven beyond any reasonable doubt that Christ didn't exist.

No, *** pirate, I didn't.

LEARN

TO

READ

You DIDN'T say that? Well, why don't you repost exactly what it was you DID say so that you can show how it was I misquoted you?

I think it's pretty obvious you have no clue what you're talking about. You anger at being asked to substantiate your own claim gives you away.

I'd suggest you take a trip to one of those community colleges you despise. Maybe there you'll learn to use your brain to reason rather than just insult people.
#82 Apr 04 2004 at 6:46 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Quote:

The reason people don't make this argument more ofted is that, frankly, there's no money in it. You could conclusively prove beyond any rational doubt in the world that Christ never existed...

And it wouldn't matter in the slightest.

QED, *****.

See the...?

What ... means is that the thought is continued.

For example:

You could go get a PhD in theology...

and still be a staggering moron who can't read something in context without a drawn diagram.


See?

The thought continues. EVEN IF IT DIDN'T...

You could go get a PhD in theology...

Doesn't mean you have gotten a PhD in theology.


[b]SO TELL ME, YOU PATHETIC MISERABLE MENTAL CRIPPLE OF A WORTHLESS WASTE OF MY TIME AND EFFORT[b]

How is it??

How

Is

It

???

That you read:

Quote:

The reason people don't make this argument more ofted is that, frankly, there's no money in it. You could conclusively prove beyond any rational doubt in the world that Christ never existed...

And it wouldn't matter in the slightest.



[b]AS


Quote:

************I CAN CONCLUSIVELY PROVE BYOND ANY RATIONAL DOUBT IN THE WORLD THAT CHRIST NEVER EXISTED****************


Because, you waste of life, I never said that.

Stop using your imagination and start using your EYES to read what was ACTUALLY POSTED

DO
YOU
UNDERSTAND
YET
MORON?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#83 Apr 04 2004 at 6:52 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
This is where someone with an ounce of courage or self accountability posts

*********** sorry, you're right. I didn't pay enough attention when I was reading that"

Alternately it's where petty pathetic ******* become overwhelmed with insecurities and try poorly to lash out and somehow justify not understanding something incredibly simple.

I can hazard a pretty good guess which one you are.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#84 Apr 04 2004 at 6:59 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
What does it take to prove that it's a fake? It's been carbon dated
Not to bring this back on topic or anything, but wasn't this the point of the OP? Regardless of the existance of Jesus (Son of God or not) and regardless of whether or not he was enshrouded in the cloth, the point was that perhaps the C-14 dating used was flawed and there was evidence suggesting the cloth did have 1st Century origins.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#85 Apr 04 2004 at 7:10 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Quote:

Not to bring this back on topic or anything, but wasn't this the point of the OP? Regardless of the existance of Jesus (Son of God or not) and regardless of whether or not he was enshrouded in the cloth, the point was that perhaps the C-14 dating used was flawed and there was evidence suggesting the cloth did have 1st Century origins.

Yes, I know. Unlike, I imagine, everyone else posting on this topic, I did some research about the "bad carbon dating" claims and they're not based on evidence at all. In point of fact, if they were, all it would take was re-carbon dating the shroud with a more representative sample.

That isn't happeneing, however. Do you know why?

Because the Vatican refuses to do so. And...

And this is the best part...

The Vatican will not accept Carbon-14 dating as a valid method of authenticating the age of anything because Carbon-14 dating allows for the dating of objects before, in the Catholic Church's oppinion, the world existed.

It would be very easy to verify the dating of the shroud. Simple in fact. That would serve no purpose for the Catholic Church however, who is happiest the way things currently are. The shroud is a relic that attracts attention to the Church, and there is enough "doubt" about the previous Carbon dating of it to muddy the waters for those who might be detered by facts.

Perfect for them. They'll never let it be tested again.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#86 Apr 04 2004 at 8:01 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Eh, I looked some stuff up as well. Pretty casually, since I hadn't even seen the program in question. Some sites lay claim that bacteria, fungi, etc contaminated the sample. Some say that repairs to the Shroud at varying points contaminated the sample and they were testing as much "new" cloth as they were old. And some say both the prior ideas are bumpkus. To be honest, I don't trust many of the anti-Shroud sites to be less biased or agenda oriented than the pro-Shroud ones. Is the Skeptical Inquirer really going to say "Hey, maybe the testing was wrong and this is the Shroud of Christ"? Of course not.

In other words, I took the yea's and the nay's and figured them both with a grain of salt. Both sides are pretty parroted across the line and, if you have 100 websites on it, 98 of them are quoting from the other two. My own stance at the beginning was that the Shroud was probably c13th Century and I still think so.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#87 Apr 04 2004 at 9:57 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Quote:

My own stance at the beginning was that the Shroud was probably c13th Century and I still think so.

Me too. It's a hell of a painting.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#88 Apr 04 2004 at 9:59 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Double

Edited, Sun Apr 4 23:00:06 2004 by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#89 Apr 04 2004 at 10:46 PM Rating: Good
**
564 posts
Okay, this is going to be my last post on this as I'm sure nothing anyone says is going to make you see how completely wrong you are. It's just not worth it.

First of all, you're right I screwed up. I allowed your juvenile name calling to annoy me to the point where I gave you the opening to twist your words after the fact.

Yes, your statement could have meant a complete hypothetical, ie. even if there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt of christ's non existence, it wouldn't matter to the christians. It ALSO could have meant, even though there IS proof beyond a reasonable doubt of Christ's non existence, showing that proof wouldn't matter to the christians. I'm not stupid enough to ask which interpretation you meant at the time, as I'm sure it will magically be whatever fits your needs now. Let's however, look at some of the things you posted AFTER that statement and before I called you on it and asked for the proof you feel is out there:

Smasharoo wrote:

It's unfortunate that you can't diffrentiate between absolute proof and proving something to a degree of certainty but that's not my problem.


Smasharoo wrote:

No one mentioned absolute proof of anything. Only proof beyond rational doubt.


Smasharoo wrote:

I hate to invoke the laws of reading comprehention, but it's quite easy to prove the non-existance of something beyond **rational** doubt.


I could go on into your comparisons with the easter bunny, but this is plenty to show that until you were asked to prove it, you were pretty certain there was proof of Christ's non existence out there for you to pull up. This reminds me of another thing you posted:

Smasharoo wrote:

You know you're not ussually a petty ***** like this. This is what I'd expect of Gabji. Backpeadeling, changing what you've previously stated.


You're right, I don't know you, you don't know me, but you've done some pretty neat backpedaling yourself in this thread.

As for the name calling and insults you've heaped on me, allow me to quote you one last time.

Smasharoo wrote:

Nothing's funnier than seeing the mentally crippled attack me peronsally when they realize I'm CMOPLETELY AND WITHOUT QUESTION CORRECT about an argument.

I consider it the message board version of applause actually.


All I can say is thank you for the applause smasharoo.Smiley: wink2
#90 Apr 04 2004 at 11:11 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Quote:
Okay, this is going to be my last post on this as I'm sure nothing anyone says is going to make you see how completely wrong you are. It's just not worth it.

Wrong about what? I haven't seen you present one single thing I haven't been %100 dead on completlely right about. No question, no room for error, no judgement required. I'm de facto, de jeure, de novo and de montrably RIGHT.

Quote:

First of all, you're right I screwed up.

Indeed. You did. Not only that, you continue to do so.



Quote:

I allowed your juvenile name calling to annoy me to the point where I gave you the opening to twist your words after the fact.

There was nothing to twist, Sparky. You didn't have anything for me to have to bothering twisting words.

Quote:

Yes, your statement could have meant a complete hypothetical, ie. even if there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt of christ's non existence, it wouldn't matter to the christians.

COULD?

No. It did. There's no other way to inerpert it. There's nothing else it could mean.

No way. No how.

You pathetic sniviling cowardly fu'ck.

You were wrong, say it and move on.


Quote:

It ALSO could have meant, even though there IS proof beyond a reasonable doubt of Christ's non existence, showing that proof wouldn't matter to the christians.

********* It COULD NOT HAVE MEANT THAT.

Were one trying to convey that, they certainly wouldn't have said "This could happen" They would have said "There is this proof".

Your matery of the ver "to be" seems markedly lacking.


Quote:

I'm not stupid enough to ask which interpretation you meant at the time, as I'm sure it will magically be whatever fits your needs now.


There isn't any other interpertation MORON. You're the ONLY one who "interperted" it that way, fu'cknut. Because it made as muych sense as "interpeting" it to mean "I like pudding."

You pathetic waste of skin.


Quote:

Let's however, look at some of the things you posted AFTER that statement and before I called you on it and asked for the proof you feel is out there:


Called me on WHAT?

YOUR IMAGINARY INTERPERTATION OF SOMETHING I DIDN'T SAY?

For fu'ck sake, JUST WHAT DOES IT TAKE FOR YOU GET IT????



Quote:

Smasharoo wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's unfortunate that you can't diffrentiate between absolute proof and proving something to a degree of certainty but that's not my problem.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Smasharoo wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No one mentioned absolute proof of anything. Only proof beyond rational doubt.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Smasharoo wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hate to invoke the laws of reading comprehention, but it's quite easy to prove the non-existance of something beyond **rational** doubt.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I could go on into your comparisons with the easter bunny, but this is plenty to show that until you were asked to prove it, you were pretty certain there was proof of Christ's non existence out there for you to pull up.

Holly ****, you REALLY ARE A SLOW ONE.

The above quotes refrence the ***Possibility*** of there being ANY WAY to prove the non existance of Christ.

JUST AS MY ORIGINIAL QUOTE DID.

READ you dumb motherfu'cker, READ!

Your orinigal response on this thread was that it's logically impossible to prove a negative. To which I responded with the quotes above pointing out that I had SPECIFICALLY QUALIFIED MY STATEMENT FOR IDIOTS LIKE YOU by saying you ***********************************COULD*************************************** see that word?

Could.

Could provide proof to a reasonable certainty and slavering idiot Christians wouldn't be swayed.

DO YOU GET IT YET?


Quote:

This reminds me of another thing you posted:


Smasharoo wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You know you're not ussually a petty ***** like this. This is what I'd expect of Gabji. Backpeadeling, changing what you've previously stated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yeah, that was a dead on solid observation on my part.

To which TOTEM, who has more integrity in a peanut stuck in a log of his **** than you'll ever have in your entire life, replied:

"Holy ****, you're right. I was wrong about that one."

YOU KNOW....LIKE YOU SHOULD BE DOING?

Quote:

You're right, I don't know you, you don't know me, but you've done some pretty neat backpedaling yourself in this thread.

I've backpeadled fron nothing you ludicrous excuse for human being. I made a statement, stood by it, backed it up, proved it and won a simple argument.

You made up some imaginary claim I never made, and made a complete *** of yourself.


Quote:

As for the name calling and insults you've heaped on me, allow me to quote you one last time.


Smasharoo wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nothing's funnier than seeing the mentally crippled attack me peronsally when they realize I'm CMOPLETELY AND WITHOUT QUESTION CORRECT about an argument.

I consider it the message board version of applause actually.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All I can say is thank you for the applause smasharoo.

The diffrence would be...

NOT THAT YOU'RE CLEVER ENOUGH TO UNDERSTNAD IT

That I attacked you personally, WHILE

utterly

destroying

your

pathetic

attempt

at an

argument.

I win, you loose, have a nice day, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#91 Apr 04 2004 at 11:17 PM Rating: Good
**
564 posts
Keep the applause coming smashie, I love it!

Smiley: flowers
#92 Apr 04 2004 at 11:25 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Quote:

Okay, this is going to be my last post on this

Stupid and now, a proven liar. Good going. Have you considered running for public officce as a Republican? You'd be perfect.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#93 Apr 05 2004 at 12:32 AM Rating: Good
**
564 posts
Oops, you're right, I'm wrong.

I DID say that would be my last post, and couldn't refrain from thanking you for the applause. I was without a doubt wrong on that one.

There you go, I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong, and don't have a problem giving credit to the person who's right.

By the way, is that the best insult you can level at me? Calling me a Republican??? Now that I understand personal attacks are your form of kudos, I was kind of enjoying them, but really, you can think of better than that.Smiley: smile
#94 Apr 05 2004 at 12:52 AM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
To Smash, calling somebody a Republican IS the best insult he can think of. And that's exactly why we keep his hippy, tree-huggin', Democratic **** around, to keep all the crazy right-wings in check.

Smiley: tongue

Edited, Mon Apr 5 16:30:52 2004 by TwiztidSamurai
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#95 Apr 05 2004 at 1:08 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Quote:

By the way, is that the best insult you can level at me? Calling me a Republican???

Personally, I'd rather have someone kill my wife and then force me to **** the corpse with a sausage created from the ground up remains of my children than be a Republican.

That's just me though.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#96 Apr 05 2004 at 1:30 AM Rating: Good
***
1,817 posts
wow. go away for a bit and look what happens. one thing stayed the same though...smash continued to spew forth garbage out of his mouth wrecklessly, alternating between bold and regular text and repeatedly tripped over himself only to get up and try to convince everyone around him through anger nothing happened.

you've got a gift smash..and it ranks up there with an a[b][/b]ss-itch in terms of comfort to us all when you speak.

i especially like how you try and make it seem like everyone here (and in the world) agree's with you and its common sense that your always right. when in fact if you deflated your head a bit so the pressure was relieved from the back of your eyeballs, you might see the reality..

..which is that the only people standing around you are doing it because its humorous to watch you rant on like a crazy person aimlessly.
#97 Apr 05 2004 at 4:43 AM Rating: Good
****
5,019 posts
Quote:
danreynolds wrote:
Okay, this is going to be my last post on this


Quote:
Smasharoo responded:
Stupid and now, a proven liar. Good going. Have you considered running for public officce as a Republican? You'd be perfect.


You didn't really just say that, didja Smash? I seem to recall another thread where you made the same claim, FOUR times, but still continued to respond frantically. Here's a little refresher, in case you've forgotten...

Quote:
It's not worth me arguing about it with you.


Quote:
...I'm <not> going to expose arguing about it with you here.


Quote:
I'm serious when I say it's not worth arguing about to me. This is my last post about it.


Quote:
Now I really am done with this.


I dunno, I guess that your sermon strikes me as just a little inconsistent with your behavior.
#98 Apr 05 2004 at 5:23 AM Rating: Decent
****
5,372 posts
Quote:
Me too. It's a hell of a painting.


If it is a fake, it probably isn't a painting. The markings are only found on the very surface of the fabric - a paint would soak through, and it has been tested for known paint components (not to say that we know everything we need to know about 13th Century paints). It is more likely to be a image burned by light onto a light sensitive substance (possibly silver oxide solution) - basically a photograph effect. The effect has been recreated using known middle ages technology.

Quote:
All I have is the entire history of the world. During whcih, there has been no evidence of Christ ever existing. Not once. No way, no how


Quick nitpick. There is evidence. You mean that there is no proof. You mean that the evidence we have is inconclusive, false, made up, or faked.
#99 Apr 05 2004 at 8:04 AM Rating: Good
***
1,817 posts
nice avatar thundra. there is a club in dallas it reminds me of. theres a little area above the club you access through a little hole in the wall. in the back of this area there is a walkway that gets smaller (like in alice in wonderland) and ends in a small room full of beanbag chairs and has tv's built into the wall that play nothing but static. not even sure if its still around but it was called Club One.

ah..the good times.
#100 Apr 05 2004 at 2:37 PM Rating: Good
****
5,019 posts
Quote:
there is a club in dallas it reminds me of. theres a little area above the club you access through a little hole in the wall. in the back of this area there is a walkway that gets smaller (like in alice in wonderland) and ends in a small room full of beanbag chairs and has tv's built into the wall that play nothing but static. not even sure if its still around but it was called Club One.


I know of a place similar to the one you described...

There's a place in France
Where the naked ladies dance
There's a hole in the wall
Where the men can see it all

Not sure why your post reminded me of that childhood poem.
#101 Apr 05 2004 at 3:40 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
Empyre wrote:
the only people standing around you are doing it because its humorous to watch you rant on like a crazy person aimlessly.

Know what? I actually agree with you on this one Empyre.

That being said, I hope Satan bought a new winter jacket and mittens.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 254 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (254)