RE: Religious Oaths

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Religious Oaths

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Religious Oaths

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Religious Oaths - 9/26/2015 9:09:49 AM

KenDckey

Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline

I know that feeling Lucy

(in reply to Lucylastic)

Profile

Post #: 21

RE: Religious Oaths - 9/26/2015 12:19:17 PM

bounty44

Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

all that venom over an "m"

you are grossly mistaken in your judgment as to what prompts the "venom."

try reading comrade penguin's post again, and then read the rest of my reply, as well as others' responses to him all over the boards.

< Message edited by bounty44 -- 9/26/2015 12:35:08 PM >

(in reply to Lucylastic)

Profile

Post #: 22

RE: Religious Oaths - 9/26/2015 12:23:39 PM

bounty44

Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

all that venom over an "m"

I was thinking more that the 'b" in "Bible" should have been capitalized in the post you were replying to.

you are correct, it "should" be, but I type everything in small letters and things only get capitalized when the auto-correct kicks in.

if the difference between capitalization and non-capitalization creates a problem for you whenever you read something I type, id be happy to change it.

< Message edited by bounty44 -- 9/26/2015 12:25:38 PM >

(in reply to Hillwilliam)

Profile

Post #: 23

RE: Religious Oaths - 9/26/2015 12:28:26 PM

Hillwilliam

Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

all that venom over an "m"

I was thinking more that the 'b" in "Bible" should have been capitalized in the post you were replying to.

you are correct, it "should" be, but I type everything in small letters and things only get capitalized when the auto-correct kicks in.

if the difference between capitalization and non-capitalization creates a problem for you whenever you read something I type, id be happy to change it.

It doesn't bother me. I was just afraid there might be a "Grammar Nazi" around somewhere who picks up on such things as who and whom. If someone like that saw your faux pas, there might be hell to pay.

_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to bounty44)

Profile

Post #: 24

RE: Religious Oaths - 9/26/2015 12:43:04 PM

bounty44

Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline

im not that really---a grammar Nazi. pretty much everyone here makes mistakes when they type, or do things wrongly from a writing perspective, or have their own idiosyncratic behavior and it all goes under the bridge.

joether's the only one with whom I make it a small point of contention.

part of it is, he's a condescending contemptuous horse's ass who parades his own "learnedness," disparages the education of those he disagrees with and so one would think he'd have his own house clean before doing so. maybe its petty on my behalf---I do wonder that.

part of it is, like I alluded to in my post to you---it gets in the way of my reading.

part of it is I genuinely want him to learn to write better.

< Message edited by bounty44 -- 9/26/2015 12:47:03 PM >

(in reply to Hillwilliam)

Profile

Post #: 25

RE: Religious Oaths - 9/26/2015 3:00:56 PM

Tkman117

Posts: 1353
Joined: 5/21/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

joether's the only one with whom I make it a small point of contention.

Yeah, because you two are often at each other's throats. You're making ad hominem attacks on his grammar instead of debating the issues, which shows a weakness in your argument. If he isn't making grammatical sense, then ask him to clarify, no point being a dick about it and shoving it in his face. That being said, if Joether is doing the same to you (which I haven't seen but won't deny might exist) then my message to him would be the same. Eye for an eye, ad hominem for an ad hominem, shut it down and you both can get back on topic.

(in reply to bounty44)

Profile

Post #: 26

RE: Religious Oaths - 9/27/2015 6:16:20 PM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

If faithfully executing the office of the President violates (insert religion here) tenets, then followers of (insert religion here) should never be President of the US.

Who would qualify under those conditions? Certainly no christian.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)

Profile

Post #: 27

RE: Religious Oaths - 9/27/2015 6:18:39 PM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: Tkman117
Eye for an eye, ad hominem for an ad hominem, shut it down and you both can get back on topic.

Were they to actually follow the prescription of an "eye for an eye" then we would not have this issue.

(in reply to Tkman117)

Profile

Post #: 28

RE: Religious Oaths - 9/27/2015 6:25:02 PM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

If I didn't already hate the fact that he was a socialist, when Obama's Reverend Wright fiasco came to light, I had some serious doubts about his ability to truly be an American president. I do have to admit that when he could no longer defend the idiot (Wright) and he cut him loose, politically, I was able to despise Obama as "just another lying politician".

You do realize that the commute from chicago to d.c is somewhat of a bitch

(in reply to DaddySatyr)

Profile

Post #: 29