Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Mayor Pete Attacks Trump's Faith...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    Then it might have been clearer if you had started with "I think there are two different issues here..." rather than "Interesting point..." (which I desisted from pointing out was singular and then you proceeded to list two points... )
    I was actually pointing out that you made me think about something, but you got your panties in a twist and went full bore psycho raging lunatic......


    yeah, just messing with you.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    I am always amazed at how quickly people here jump to assuming the person on the other side of the screen is posting out of malice.
    I was just pulling your chain. I know you're posting out of confusion.

    Leave a comment:


  • Adrift
    replied
    Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    To be blunt, Adrift, that is not my concern.
    I think it is, or else you wouldn't have bothered to reply.

    Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    That may be true. The fact is, it was the forum I was familiar with due to my previous exposure here, and the first place I thought of when I asked myself, "where could I get one-on-one with right-leaning, conservative types, many of whom will probably be Trump defenders? So it's where I decided to come. Whether or not you believe that, again, not under my control and not my concern.
    I don't believe you. And yes, I am not under your control, and no, I don't believe that you're not concerned. People don't waste time typing up replies to posts they're not concerned about.

    Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    I suggest you go back through the various threads and review. When I WAS engaging in moral discussions, that was pretty much the bottom line. When pushed to confront contradictions, the go-to-response was (paraphrasing) "we are bible-believing Christians and that's what the bible says." It's what made me realize the futility of discussing specific moral topics, generally. And it's why I typically disengage with a discussion when that becomes the justification for the position. However, many discussions have been about racism, the nature of morality, logic, privilege, Trump, the 2nd amendment, and other topics that have not ended up in "the bible says." Those are the ones I am generally interested in.
    I have reviewed the threads. You often don't know what is actually being argued because your eyes are so set on the trees you don't see the forest. seer, for instance, will often grant you that his moral position is "I believe it because the Bible says it" only to move the discussion forward. The reason he does that is because you are so fixated on overstating your case that he wants to see if you'll move past your strawmen so that he can get you back on the main points of contention. He does this often with you, and for whatever reason, you just don't see it. A little digging into his claims reveal that there's far more going on into his actual thinking processes concerning morality and the bible than the strict "I believe it because I'm a zombie Christian" than you seem to think. I pointed that out in this post here, but apparently you missed it once again.

    Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    Well, my simplest answer to that is, "practice." Despite the many accusations about my not being "self-reflective," I actually am. Being here for the past many months has taught me a number of lessons about myself that I consider valuable. For example, I tend to get REALLY defensive when people say things about me that are not true, or misrepresent the position I have put forward. Although I mentally believe, "what a person says about me or to me doesn't change who I am, and says more about who they are," the fact is I have not internalized that on a more emotional/psychological level. I still react. If the solution to getting fit is exercising the muscles, then I submit that the solution to getting good at "letting go" is to find a venue where that skill can be practiced. I doubt too many would argue with the observation that this is a good place to develop that skill. I still consider myself a "90 pound weakling" in that particular skill set, but I find I am steadily getting better. And I am also finding it is also reflecting IRL. It's a good thing.

    As they say - no pain no gain!
    So...why do you complain if you're actually getting something out of all of the abuse you say you suffer through? Why not suffer the slings and arrows silently? After all, they're for your own good, right? No one here likes hearing you whine about it constantly. It makes you out to be the 90 pound weakling you consider yourself to be.

    Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    Then, to paraphrase a wise man, "you don't have to read every post. You know that, right?

    Adrift - if you find my posts tedious or disingenuous or insulting, then just stop reading them. I'll never know, and no feelings will be harmed.
    I honestly don't reply to you that often. Often, you reply to me when I'm talking to someone else (as you did here). Unlike you, I have quite a bit in common with the posters here. Certainly not politically, but we share a common faith, so I have good reason to read the posts on this forum, and share my Bible-believing faith with my fellow sisters and brothers in Christ. If it gets to the point that I find your posts a big enough nuisance, I have no problem ignoring them (I ignore the vast majority of your posts anyways), but I don't mind stepping in pointing out your passive-aggressiveness, and out and out false claims from time to time.

    Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    I don't argue about whether or not the bible is divinely inspired - so no problem.
    But you do argue with Christians who believe that the Bible is divinely inspired, so, as we saw here in your reply to Sparko, it is a problem.

    Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    Then we disagree. I find Seer's arguments to be badly, logically flawed.
    You find them badly logically flawed because you're often not seeing his broad strokes. Granted, that's sometimes on him for purposely skipping past what he thinks is obvious, but more often than not, his arguments are not logically flawed.

    Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    Adrift, there are some facts about the authors that are simply inescapable. Most of the books of the bible we have no idea who the actual author was. Most of the books of the bible we have no body of other literature reliably known to be written by that author.
    Wrong. Most of the books of the Bible we have great knowledge of who the author is. We may not know all of their names (which has never been of great import in ancient historical writings), but we often know where they're from, what sort of education they likely had, what period they're writing in, who their audience is, etc. You're speaking out of ignorance because this is an area outside of your expertise. Pick up the works of noted Biblical scholars like John Walton, Michael Heiser, Richard Hess, Richard Elliott Friedman, Geza Vermes, Raymond Brown, NT Wright, Richard Bauckham, and the social-context scholars like David deSilva, Jerome Neyrey, and Bruce Malina.

    Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    The oldest scraps of the OT we have date to centuries after the originals were written.
    So what? We have the LXX, the Peshitta, and the Masoretic which largely agree with the DSS. And the earliest preserved text we have, the Silver Scroll of Ketef Hinnom that dates to as early as the 7th century confirms a number of Biblical passages. Our fragments for the New Testament are even earlier. We have fragments of John that likely date to the early 2nd century. Also, scholars have known for years that earlier doesn't always translate to more accurate. When later texts from very disparate origins agree, we can count on them having very similar origins.

    Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    Any change that was inserted between the original author ad the first few copies would have propagated widely and would be indistinguishable from the original writing. The claim "they are identical to" or even "they are very close to" the original works is "best guess" at best.
    This is where text critical scholarship steps in and evaluates early from late. Scholars have this down to a science at this point, and are working on far more than simply a "best guess." Again, I recommend you read the scholars I cited above. If you don't like reading, listen to Old Testament scholar, Dr. Heiser's Naked Bible podcast. He steps through whole books of the Bible and offers links to resources and peer-reviewed papers on the study and analysis of the Old Testament texts. He will literally pull apart a passage bit by bit so you can see the stages of development (if any exist to begin with).

    Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    The NT is different. for the Gospels and Acts, the writings post-date the events they record by decades.
    You type that as though that's a bad thing. In the ancient world that is absolutely outstanding! We have barely any writings that close to the date of the events in the ancient world. It just doesn't exist. Yet, we (as a society, and certainly scholars of all stripes) believe all sorts of things about the ancient world that we have far less manuscript evidence for, or that we do have manuscript evidence for, but that date hundreds if not thousands of years later. When you type stuff like this, everyone can see your hand and can call your bluff. You're making a terrible internet skeptic mistake of thinking that material written decades after an event is a bad thing. It'd be hysterical if it weren't so common.

    Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    What we have is not reliably a record of "what happened" so much as it is a testament of how the extant community, at the time of their writing, was relating about "what happened." In other words, they tell us the theology of this post-Jesus community as it existed 30-60 years after the death of Jesus of Nazareth. The letters are, of course, concurrent with the community in which or for which they were written, but they are largely written by second-generation Christians, so again tell us the theology of the leaders and community at the time of their writing.
    Well yes, and no. Yes, the books of the New Testament are generally geared towards the community that they're being written to. That's true of any historical source. Even today. If you were writing a biography on President Reagan today, you'd likely frame quite a bit with what's happening right now in the 21st century. It wouldn't mean your biography is necessarily wrong, but that it's geared towards a 21st century audience, and not an audience living through the Cold War. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. No, the New Testament was not largely written by second-generation Christians. Second-generation Christians would be people like Polycarp, Clement of Rome, and Ignatius of Antioch. The New Testament is largely contemporaneous with the 1st generation of Christians.

    Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    And again we have no extant manuscripts. IIRC, the first full NT we have dates from the 4th century and is a translation from the original language. The oldest fragment we have is still from the second century and is a credit-card sized fragment. On this, people pile belief upon belief and make claims to virtually inerrant "knowledge" that simply cannot be supported by the reality.
    Name an extant autograph manuscript from the ancient world outside of someone's grocery list. We have earlier extant manuscripts of the New Testament than we have for any other book in the ancient world. No one (certainly no one on this forum) makes a claim "to virtually inerrant 'knowledge.'" I don't even know what that means. For someone who claims to have been a devout Christian, you have some really weird ideas about Christians. Some Christians believe that the original autographs of the books/letters of the Bible are inerrant. And by inerrancy they typically mean something like that found in the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy. Not every Christian believes the Bible is inerrant, however. Plenty of people on this very forum do not hold that position. Outside of weirdo King James-Onlyists, no one believes that the 2nd century fragments or the largely complete Codex Vaticanus dating to 300-305 is inerrant. Furthermore, we have other sources outside of these fragments. We have thousands of quotes from the Bible in the writings of early Jewish, Christian, and pagan sources. Again, historians have repeatedly stated over the years that early does not always equal better. Early is sometimes wrong when it turns out that the earliest variant is largely inconsistent with later texts that originate from disparate sources and places.

    Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    I understand the history and the draw that the bible has, and the mindset that sees it as the "inerrant word of god" (for those who believe it to be such). It is not a belief I can share, or find supportable by the available information.
    It doesn't sound like you understand the history or the mindset that sees the "inerrant word of god" at all.

    Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    Although I have mentioned over 2500 sects (and counting), I don't believe I ever suggested that the divide between these sects was "wide." As with most things in life, I suspect if you could quantitatively measure the "divide" you would find a classic bell curve. They all ultimately source to the same root, so there is likely a significant cohesion among the majority. The cohesion will become looser and looser as you move out to 3 and 4 and 5 and 6 sigmas, with the expected reduction in number of sects that occupy that space on the continuum. But the fact that there are SO many sects and the number continues to climb as communities encounter issues (social, theological, doctrinal, moral, etc.) they cannot internally resolve is informative to me. I have said before: religions tend to separation. The longer a religion has existed, the more it separates (although they don't all do it at the same rate). The reunification of religions/sects once divided is comparatively rare. Science tends to unity. In science, dissent and discord tends to occur when a new idea is first proposed. Then, as the concept is tested and more and more teams can reproduce the effects or use the principle to predict outcomes, the position becomes more widely accepted and embraced. There are always holdouts, of course, but generally it tends to unity. I have come to believe that the reason for this dynamic is that religions are not based in reality - they are rooted in a supreme being that simply doesn't exist. Science, on the other hand, is rooted in reality - it explores and assesses the reality all around us.
    There was no need to talk of 2500 sects if you agree that there is significant cohesion. Furthermore, what you seem to think is a weakness, I find to be a strength. In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity is a great way for Christianity to spread throughout the world, and speak to people on levels they can understand and relate to. It'll be great when Christ returns and all his followers will return to a single fold, but in the meantime, I think it's phenomenal that I have choice. And comparing Christian diversity with the sciences is completely left-field. What does cohesion in the sciences have to do with anything? First of all, your view of the sciences is ridiculously naive. The sciences are absolutely brimming with diversity and disharmony. Ego and disputes. Nothing would happen at all in the sciences if everyone was constantly on the same page. It's only because people strongly and heavily disagree with one another that the sciences advance at all. Furthermore, you're talking as though science was the only avenue to truth, which is plainly not the case. Some of our greatest philosophers, literary critics, economists, and social scientists disagree radically from one another, and yet, we largely agree that they have something important to say about the areas they have expertise in.

    Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    I absolute agree that I have nothing to say to the Christians who speak from the perspective of scripture. That is why I say, "I don't do 'the bible says' arguments." For me, the bible is a collection of ancient texts. As with all ancient texts, they tell us, with reasonable certainty, about the culture in which they were written, and the beliefs of the authors. They are marvelous secondary (and sometimes primary) sources for confirming historical events reported in other ways (i.e., architecture, other writings, etc.). They provide insights into the evolution of the early church. They are also critical to understanding the evolution of human societies for the last 1700 years - since Christianity became the default religion of the Roman Empire and Christianity (in general) took it's place as the most influential religion in the history of humanity.

    As for going elsewhere - if I am asked to leave by the owners of this site, I will honor that request, of course. Otherwise, I'll probably stick around. I have to admit, I usually enjoy your posts and discussions with you, but you seem to be on a bit of a tear with respect to me these days. I'm not sure what triggered that, and I hope a return to the previous ability to dialogue is in the offing. If not... well... not sure what else to say.
    I don't care if you stay on the forum or not, but it make zero sense to stay on a forum where you feel you're constantly being victimized, and where you are debating people who have aligned their worldview with something that you refuse to engage. That's very strange. Normal people don't do that.

    And, I'm sorry, while I once enjoyed discussions with you, I really don't think I have since your return. I don't think you're an evil or bad person. I don't think you're dumb. But I think you're very confused. I think you come off more passive-aggressive, and condescending than you think, and as I stated in a previous post, I think you retreat into contradictory arguments when faced with the absurdity of your own logic. As I say above, I typically ignore your posts, because they're just so...I don't know...out there, but every now and then I think it's good to expose your words for what they are. There's a bit of a bully in you that plays the victim in order to get away with it, and I think that's what gets me triggered.
    Last edited by Adrift; 06-20-2019, 09:04 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tassman
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post

    Tassman finally got it right and admitted that Buttigieg isn't a "REAL Christian!"
    The sarcasm escapes you. The context makes it clear that Buttigieg "isn't a REAL Christian" according to you. This has been my argument from the start,

    Leave a comment:


  • carpedm9587
    replied
    Originally posted by Adrift View Post
    I don't buy it.
    To be blunt, Adrift, that is not my concern.

    Originally posted by Adrift View Post
    There are thousands of political forums, far more than than there are Christian forums, with all variety of views. This is a Theology forum first and foremost. It's in the freakin name. It's owned by Christians, and most of the posters are Christian, and most of the threads in Civics have something to do with the Christian worldview of the posters. Their Christian worldview is more often than not, based on their view of scripture. You KNOW that. If you didn't want to engage with people whose worldview was informed by their reading of scripture then you came back to the wrong forum.
    That may be true. The fact is, it was the forum I was familiar with due to my previous exposure here, and the first place I thought of when I asked myself, "where could I get one-on-one with right-leaning, conservative types, many of whom will probably be Trump defenders? So it's where I decided to come. Whether or not you believe that, again, not under my control and not my concern.

    Originally posted by Adrift View Post
    And, as an aside, I don't think I've ever heard anyone start or end a discussion with "because the bible says so." Very few people are that black and white fundamentalist in their thinking. Most people here spend great amounts of time reading their Bibles in light of deep theological and philosophical deliberation. They don't simply say, "I believe it because they Bible says it." They ask "why do I believe what I believe," or "why is this in my Bible, what was God's ultimate intention or goal here?"
    I suggest you go back through the various threads and review. When I WAS engaging in moral discussions, that was pretty much the bottom line. When pushed to confront contradictions, the go-to-response was (paraphrasing) "we are bible-believing Christians and that's what the bible says." It's what made me realize the futility of discussing specific moral topics, generally. And it's why I typically disengage with a discussion when that becomes the justification for the position. However, many discussions have been about racism, the nature of morality, logic, privilege, Trump, the 2nd amendment, and other topics that have not ended up in "the bible says." Those are the ones I am generally interested in.

    Originally posted by Adrift View Post
    Why would anyone in their right mind continue to post in a place that they don't feel welcome? If the condescension at TWeb is really as bad as you're making it out to be, why come back every single day? That's madness.
    Well, my simplest answer to that is, "practice." Despite the many accusations about my not being "self-reflective," I actually am. Being here for the past many months has taught me a number of lessons about myself that I consider valuable. For example, I tend to get REALLY defensive when people say things about me that are not true, or misrepresent the position I have put forward. Although I mentally believe, "what a person says about me or to me doesn't change who I am, and says more about who they are," the fact is I have not internalized that on a more emotional/psychological level. I still react. If the solution to getting fit is exercising the muscles, then I submit that the solution to getting good at "letting go" is to find a venue where that skill can be practiced. I doubt too many would argue with the observation that this is a good place to develop that skill. I still consider myself a "90 pound weakling" in that particular skill set, but I find I am steadily getting better. And I am also finding it is also reflecting IRL. It's a good thing.

    As they say - no pain no gain!

    Originally posted by Adrift View Post
    Then don't say anything. You don't have to reply to every post. You realize that, right?
    First - see above. Second, I actually don't respond to every post. The major exception could possibly be discussions with Seer.

    Originally posted by Adrift View Post
    You really don't have to reply back every time someone replies to you. If you truly think that Bible-based moralism, or Bible-based views are beneath you, or have nothing to do with you, then either leave, or stop telling people things like "I don't do 'but the bible says' arguments." No one cares if you don't do "bible says" arguments. This is a Christian forum, you're going to hear the occasional Bible verse reference.
    I respond with "I don't do "the bible says" discussions when I am in a discussion with someone and they respond to one of my posts with something that is of the form, "the bible says." I don't just jump into a discussion with "I don't do 'the bible says discussions.' "

    Originally posted by Adrift View Post
    This is a such load of baloney, and I'm tired of seeing you repeat it.
    Then, to paraphrase a wise man, "you don't have to read every post. You know that, right?

    Adrift - if you find my posts tedious or disingenuous or insulting, then just stop reading them. I'll never know, and no feelings will be harmed.

    Originally posted by Adrift View Post
    1.) If you don't want to have arguments with Christians who believe that scripture is divinely inspired then head towards the door. This is not the forum format for you.
    I don't argue about whether or not the bible is divinely inspired - so no problem.

    Originally posted by Adrift View Post
    2.) seer knocks your arguments clean out of the park before he even picks up a Bible. He is constantly 3 moves ahead of you in just about every argument I've seen him engage you in. You lock into one bit of his argument, and can't ever seem to understand why he doesn't see your tree for the forest.
    Then we disagree. I find Seer's arguments to be badly, logically flawed. It's one thing to be bible-based. That is a matter of belief. But if you are going to apply logic, you should get it right and now the fundamentals of logic. Seer keeps tripping over them, and then ignoring it when he is caught doing so. He works carefully to make sure he is the one asking the questions, and dodges the questions asked in return on a regular basis. Conversations with him are interesting, that I will admit. And he is tenacious, no doubt. But his quality of argumentation is not as strong as it could be.

    Originally posted by Adrift View Post
    3.) I've been on this forum for a long time. Christians here have the occasional disagreement on scripture, but generally speaking we seem to agree on the broad strokes. Disagreement can usually be settled by going to New and Old Testament scholars and seeing how they parse the Hebrew and Greek.
    I'm not sure why you felt you needed to say this in this context, so I'll leave it to you.

    Originally posted by Adrift View Post
    4.) We know quite a bit about the authorship of the Bible, and the customs and culture of the people who wrote it, and the audience it was directed towards. True we don't have the original autographs, but even highly skeptical scholars like Bart Ehrman admits that what we do have is relatively close to the originals, and that little if anything would change in matters of doctrine. Furthermore, especially concerning the New Testament, experts are agreed that the original autographs are incredibly close to the events they purport to record compared to contemporaneous writings. Some passages coming within 5 years or less after the event (the 1st Corinthian 15 creed for example). This is all Theology 101. Stuff you would have likely learned had you actually attended seminary. Stuff that you should have learned before your return visit here.
    Adrift, there are some facts about the authors that are simply inescapable. Most of the books of the bible we have no idea who the actual author was. Most of the books of the bible we have no body of other literature reliably known to be written by that author. The oldest scraps of the OT we have date to centuries after the originals were written. Any change that was inserted between the original author ad the first few copies would have propagated widely and would be indistinguishable from the original writing. The claim "they are identical to" or even "they are very close to" the original works is "best guess" at best. The NT is different. for the Gospels and Acts, the writings post-date the events they record by decades. What we have is not reliably a record of "what happened" so much as it is a testament of how the extant community, at the time of their writing, was relating about "what happened." In other words, they tell us the theology of this post-Jesus community as it existed 30-60 years after the death of Jesus of Nazareth. The letters are, of course, concurrent with the community in which or for which they were written, but they are largely written by second-generation Christians, so again tell us the theology of the leaders and community at the time of their writing. And again we have no extant manuscripts. IIRC, the first full NT we have dates from the 4th century and is a translation from the original language. The oldest fragment we have is still from the second century and is a credit-card sized fragment. On this, people pile belief upon belief and make claims to virtually inerrant "knowledge" that simply cannot be supported by the reality.

    I understand the history and the draw that the bible has, and the mindset that sees it as the "inerrant word of god" (for those who believe it to be such). It is not a belief I can share, or find supportable by the available information.

    Originally posted by Adrift View Post
    5.) I come from a cult that argued that Christianity was false, and you could know that this was true because of all of the warring denominations out there. Imagine my shock when, after leaving that cult and studying Christianity, I came to the realization that all of these denominational divides weren't nearly as wide or widespread as I had been taught. The World Christian Encyclopedia where everyone gets their denominational count from, points out that in fact there are 6 major ecclesiastico-​cultural blocs, divided into 300 major ecclesiastical traditions, with distinct denominational splits from there. The vast majority of Christians are on the same page, and moreso, the vast majority of Biblical scholars are unified in a number of major areas and disciplines.
    Although I have mentioned over 2500 sects (and counting), I don't believe I ever suggested that the divide between these sects was "wide." As with most things in life, I suspect if you could quantitatively measure the "divide" you would find a classic bell curve. They all ultimately source to the same root, so there is likely a significant cohesion among the majority. The cohesion will become looser and looser as you move out to 3 and 4 and 5 and 6 sigmas, with the expected reduction in number of sects that occupy that space on the continuum. But the fact that there are SO many sects and the number continues to climb as communities encounter issues (social, theological, doctrinal, moral, etc.) they cannot internally resolve is informative to me. I have said before: religions tend to separation. The longer a religion has existed, the more it separates (although they don't all do it at the same rate). The reunification of religions/sects once divided is comparatively rare. Science tends to unity. In science, dissent and discord tends to occur when a new idea is first proposed. Then, as the concept is tested and more and more teams can reproduce the effects or use the principle to predict outcomes, the position becomes more widely accepted and embraced. There are always holdouts, of course, but generally it tends to unity. I have come to believe that the reason for this dynamic is that religions are not based in reality - they are rooted in a supreme being that simply doesn't exist. Science, on the other hand, is rooted in reality - it explores and assesses the reality all around us.

    Originally posted by Adrift View Post
    Your position is not fairly rational. It's absurd. If you're being honest, and you really don't have anything to say to Christians who speak from the perspective of scripture, and are not just defaulting to the refrain "I don't do 'but the bible says' arguments" because you know it'll take work, then, again, this is not the forum for you. Go some place where you think the people are less condescending, and where you won't have to deal with pesky Bible-believing Christians all of the time.
    I absolute agree that I have nothing to say to the Christians who speak from the perspective of scripture. That is why I say, "I don't do 'the bible says' arguments." For me, the bible is a collection of ancient texts. As with all ancient texts, they tell us, with reasonable certainty, about the culture in which they were written, and the beliefs of the authors. They are marvelous secondary (and sometimes primary) sources for confirming historical events reported in other ways (i.e., architecture, other writings, etc.). They provide insights into the evolution of the early church. They are also critical to understanding the evolution of human societies for the last 1700 years - since Christianity became the default religion of the Roman Empire and Christianity (in general) took it's place as the most influential religion in the history of humanity.

    As for going elsewhere - if I am asked to leave by the owners of this site, I will honor that request, of course. Otherwise, I'll probably stick around. I have to admit, I usually enjoy your posts and discussions with you, but you seem to be on a bit of a tear with respect to me these days. I'm not sure what triggered that, and I hope a return to the previous ability to dialogue is in the offing. If not... well... not sure what else to say.
    Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-20-2019, 06:49 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
16 responses
124 views
0 likes
Last Post One Bad Pig  
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
53 responses
326 views
0 likes
Last Post Mountain Man  
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
25 responses
111 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
33 responses
196 views
0 likes
Last Post Roy
by Roy
 
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
84 responses
360 views
0 likes
Last Post JimL
by JimL
 
Working...
X