|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 10, 2008 18:00:09 GMT -4
The reason I keep on with this is because you made a claim and I'm waiting for you to either back it up or to retract it. Revisit the thread where you repeatedly called me ignorant for saying p52 was the oldest fragment of the New Testament. You called me ignorant for what you saw as my belief that the New Testament was all the same thing written at the same time. In your mind, I should have said "the earliest fragment of what would later come to be known as the New Testament" instead of "earliest fragment of the New Testament." Reading the earlier parts of that thread where we were talking about which of the Gospels came first, one would have had a pretty good clue that I didn't think it was all written at the same time. But you continued to call me ignorant for that and for other things we disagreed about. So just talk about the subject. Don't call me ignorant. Don't repeat things so I can get them into my head. I revisited it. Please link to any post in which I called you ignorant or retract your claim.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 10, 2008 18:05:01 GMT -4
I doubt that actually, I'm nowhere near a supporter of Bush, I think the man is an idiot and that a chimp would have been a better President. I also think that one of the reasons the Dems lost the 2004 election was because of the candidate they put up rather than Bush's abilities. A, there's at least one person on this board who would dispute you about that, and who would not agree that Bush in an empty room still wouldn't be the smartest person in the room. (Not that I disagree with you, Gods know.) Well yeah, but we still love Jason anyway. I do actually respect and like Gore, I think he would have done a good job. In a way he's lucky he didn't win, while he might not have made the same mess Bush has over Iraq, he still would have suffered the effects of 9/11 and it's aftermath in Afghanistan. I'm not so sure about his abilities at running a war, though one has to suspect they'd have been better then Bush's. Kerry... well I certainly thought the 2004 election was a choice between Tweedle dumb and Tweedle dumber, unfortunately Tweedle Dumber won it again, but more by default that anything.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Feb 10, 2008 18:09:02 GMT -4
One does not have to use the word "ignorant" to claim that one is ignorant.
Saying that I thought the New Testament was all the same is to claim that I am ignorant, as you claimed repeatedly even in the face of my objections that this was not the case. When I directed you to a website with an image of p52 that said it was "the earliest fragment of the New Testament" you berated me for believing everything I find on the internet. The argument was about the earliest physical evidence of the NT and you wanted to instead make it about my ignorance.
I do not withdraw my claim. You remain a dick as far as I am concerned.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 10, 2008 18:13:38 GMT -4
One does not have to use the word "ignorant" to claim that one is ignorant. Saying that I thought the New Testament was all the same is to claim that I am ignorant, as you claimed repeatedly even in the face of my objections that this was not the case. When I directed you to a website with an image of p52 that said it was "the earliest fragment of the New Testament" you berated me for believing everything I find on the internet. The argument was about the earliest physical evidence of the NT and you wanted to instead make it about my ignorance. I do not withdraw my claim. You remain a dick as far as I am concerned. So even though you can show nowhere that I have directly called you ignorant, and can only wave your hands about in a claim that in some vague form you think I have, and that you can't show anywhere that I have laid any person insults or attacks against you, you continue to do so against me. Well if that is your stance, fine, I'll pass it on to LO to resolve since he is a neutral party in this.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Feb 10, 2008 18:19:52 GMT -4
I should have figured.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Feb 10, 2008 18:39:37 GMT -4
And good job at making this about me and not about the subject at hand.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 10, 2008 18:46:15 GMT -4
And good job at making this about me and not about the subject at hand. Me making this about you? You did that yourself when you started calling people names and refused to answer questions. Frankly the way you have been in this thread is not that far off what I'd expect from the run of the mill CT.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Feb 10, 2008 18:57:47 GMT -4
And good job at making this about me and not about the subject at hand. Me making this about you? You did that yourself when you started calling people names and refused to answer questions. Frankly the way you have been in this thread is not that far off what I'd expect from the run of the mill CT. You know, PW, I've answered the question three times. The fact that I didn't give you the answer you wanted is your problem, not mine. I answered your question in posts 1722, 1762 and 1766. The fact that you continue to claim that I have not answered the question is another reason why I think you are a dick. I had moved on. See reply 1766. I was ready to discuss the topic.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Feb 10, 2008 19:08:41 GMT -4
I'm going to answer perhaps the most stupid question ever posted here. Where do you find the post numbers? How could I find post 1766?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Feb 10, 2008 19:11:55 GMT -4
The "reply #" should be right above the beginning of the main body of the text and below the title of the thread. At least that is where it is for me.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 10, 2008 20:20:10 GMT -4
You know, PW, I've answered the question three times. All you did was say you'd already answered it after I had presented further information and in post #1724 asked you to clarify your previous answer. When you finally did after several people asking, not just me, you merely repeated it, you never bothered to clarify it until post #1766. The answer I wanted was one based on reality not on the assumption that Bush had done nothing all year and then got a special memo that was a CIA warning about an iminent AQ Hijacking in the US. So far I'm still not sure you have given one because until post #1766 all you were doing is saying you'd do things Bush had already done will before that briefing occured. And I gave you extra information asked for clarification in #1724Made after several others also asked you to answer the quewstion I asked in #1724 and in which you merely repeated the incorrect assumptions you made in #1722, totally ignoring the information I'd posted in #1724Which I responded to in #1769, and you have totally ignored rather going off on a rant about #1770. Another personal attack, and besides, you did refuse to answer question, even others started asking you to answer them, so your claims to have done so are baseless. And yet you totally ignored post #1769 and instead started bemoaning how terribly I have treated you since you got here. That's really ready to move on and discuss the topic. edited to add in links.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Feb 10, 2008 21:45:02 GMT -4
I love coming home from work to find childish bickering in the forum.
Stop insulting each other. I don't care if it's subtle or blatantly obvious, and I don't care how badly you think someone deserves to be insulted. I don't want people treated like that here. If you feel you can't handle that simple request then find a new forum.
However, having said that I will also add that you are not children, if you can't handle a few insults then you shouldn't be participating in internet forums at all. If someone insults you turn the other cheek and show a little bit of class by not behaving the same way.
People are always going to disagree with you, especially when you make controversial claims, so get used to it. When you make claims you are expected to be able to support them. But sometimes opinions and beliefs are expressed and you can't always support that with a hyperlink. It's not going to be the end of the world if someone holds a belief that you disagree with.
I suggest you both just drop this subject for a while. Be glad that I'm letting you both off with just a warning, my day has been long enough and I don't need to be bothered with this kind of crap right now.
If you continue to bicker then a week long ban will be required to (hopefully) calm you down. If you can't say anything nice to each other then don't say anything at all, it's that simple.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 11, 2008 12:09:28 GMT -4
News came over the wires today that the US plans to charge 6 Guantanomo Bay detainees in connection with the 9/11 attacks and will seek the death penalty. The men likely to be charged are Khalid Sheik Mohammed - the planner of the attacks, Mohammed al-Qahtani - the "20th hijacker", Ramzi bin al-Shibh - said to have been the main intermediary between the hijackers and Al Qaeda leaders, Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali AKA Ammar al-Baluchi - a nephew of KSM and lieutenant of the operation, Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi - al-Baluchi's assistant, and Walid bin Attash AKA Khallad - who selected and trained some of the hijackers. They will be tried in the military tribunal system set up by the Bush Administration and revised by the Supreme Court in 2006.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Feb 11, 2008 15:35:03 GMT -4
My apologies to the forum.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Feb 11, 2008 16:33:38 GMT -4
News came over the wires today that the US plans to charge 6 Guantanomo Bay detainees in connection with the 9/11 attacks and will seek the death penalty. If their defence lawyers are any good, I expect them to go free on account of the way prisoners are treated at Camp Delta.
|
|