Name 5 people you can�t stand thread who you don�t share a religion with

[lilpixieofterror]

In any case, I'm reasonably certain that this is the thread where it happened: http://web.archive.org/web/201308270...Horribly-Wrong


Unfortunately a majority of the pages were not saved on the wayback machine, which means that I cannot access the page where the quote doctoring occurred, unless someone archived the thread on their hard drive.

Tazzy Wazzy is as slimy and dishonest as they come, but don't expect him to admit to any of his errors and mistakes. He's incapable of doing that.

[JimL]

I have no idea what you're on about. Darth Ovious asked me if I had ever put anyone on my list on ignore, and I said that I used to have Tassman on ignore, and provided the reason why. I wasn't trying to provide an exhaustive list on the things I consider to be reprehensible behaviour from Tassman.

You have no idea? Well, doesn't that figure. Darths question was in reply to your previous post, post #29, where you called Tass slimy, intellectually dishonest, narrow minded, and out of touch with reality. And in proof of this you have to go back years to find something, and even then you can come up with nothing. I would say that was a bit slimy, intellectually dishonest, narrow minded and out of touch with reality.

[Tassman]

I have no idea what you're on about. Darth Ovious asked me if I had ever put anyone on my list on ignore, and I said that I used to have Tassman on ignore, and provided the reason why. I wasn't trying to provide an exhaustive list on the things I consider to be reprehensible behaviour from Tassman.

What do you mean "exhaustive", you haven't provided anything.

[JonathanL]

In any case, I'm reasonably certain that this is the thread where it happened: http://web.archive.org/web/201308270...Horribly-Wrong


Unfortunately a majority of the pages were not saved on the wayback machine, which means that I cannot access the page where the quote doctoring occurred, unless someone archived the thread on their hard drive.

[JonathanL]

Talk about slimy Chrawnus. You can only come up with one thing in all the years that Tass has been posting on tweb, and that one thing is an unprovable accusation from years ago. You'd better look in the mirror young man, I'll bet you can find more dirt on yourself than that without even trying.

I have no idea what you're on about. Darth Ovious asked me if I had ever put anyone on my list on ignore, and I said that I used to have Tassman on ignore, and provided the reason why. I wasn't trying to provide an exhaustive list on the things I consider to be reprehensible behaviour from Tassman.

[JimL]

What I was referring to was an instance pre-crash in one of the "God commanded genocide/infanticide"-threads (I don't remember the specific subject, but it was along those lines.) where Tassman quoted something from William Lane Craig's Q&A section on the reasonablefaith.org website and doctored it to make Craig's position seem more unpalatable. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately for Tassman) it seems that the Wayback machine wasn't able to save the specific page where the quote doctoring occurred (or if it did I was unable to find it), which means that I cannot provide solid evidence.

Talk about slimy Chrawnus. You can only come up with one thing in all the years that Tass has been posting on tweb, and that one thing is an unprovable accusation from years ago. You'd better look in the mirror young man, I'll bet you can find more dirt on yourself than that without even trying.

[seer]

2) seer. Part of me holds out hope that he's actually just a mean-spirited liberal who's posting as a grossly exaggerated parody of a conservative Christian. I'd be really disappointed if there's a real person who's every single negative stereotype of a conservative--a narrow-minded, fearmongering old person who's out of touch with reality.

I will consider this high praise indeed! I certainly am narrow-minded, but then again so are you. But out of touch? Example please.

[shunyadragon]

What I was referring to was an instance pre-crash in one of the "God commanded genocide/infanticide"-threads (I don't remember the specific subject, but it was along those lines.) where Tassman quoted something from William Lane Craig's Q&A section on the reasonablefaith.org website and doctored it to make Craig's position seem more unpalatable. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately for Tassman) it seems that the Wayback machine wasn't able to save the specific page where the quote doctoring occurred (or if it did I was unable to find it), which means that I cannot provide solid evidence.

Interesting idea, a thread on this topic. Personally I find Craig's position on this unpalatable.

[Tassman]

What I was referring to was an instance pre-crash in one of the "God commanded genocide/infanticide"-threads (I don't remember the specific subject, but it was along those lines.) where Tassman quoted something from William Lane Craig's Q&A section on the reasonablefaith.org website and doctored it to make Craig's position seem more unpalatable. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately for Tassman) it seems that the Wayback machine wasn't able to save the specific page where the quote doctoring occurred (or if it did I was unable to find it), which means that I cannot provide solid evidence.

I have no recollection of such a discussion and, frankly I think you're confusing me with someone else. Interesting that you find it acceptable to make allegations based upon a vague memory when you have no means of substantiating it. And equally interesting is MaxVel's "me-too" support when he had no idea of what the alleged discussion was about.

[JonathanL]

MOI, “slimy and dishonest”! I deny everything, I don't do dishonest slime. Chances are that you misunderstood whatever it was that got your knickers in a knot.

Nah, I think Chrawnus knows what he's talking about.

Blind faith gets you no where. I think . . . ?!?!? Do you know what Chawnus is referring to? Chawnus should not make such accusations without backing them up with facts.

What I was referring to was an instance pre-crash in one of the "God commanded genocide/infanticide"-threads (I don't remember the specific subject, but it was along those lines.) where Tassman quoted something from William Lane Craig's Q&A section on the reasonablefaith.org website and doctored it to make Craig's position seem more unpalatable. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately for Tassman) it seems that the Wayback machine wasn't able to save the specific page where the quote doctoring occurred (or if it did I was unable to find it), which means that I cannot provide solid evidence.

[shunyadragon]

Nah, I think Chrawnus knows what he's talking about.

Blind faith gets you no where. I think . . . ?!?!? Do you know what Chawnus is referring to? Chawnus should not make such accusations without backing them up with facts.

[MaxVel]

MOI, “slimy and dishonest”! I deny everything, I don't do dishonest slime. Chances are that you misunderstood whatever it was that got your knickers in a knot.

Nah, I think Chrawnus knows what he's talking about.

[Tassman]

None of them currently, but Tassman used to be, due to him doing something particularly slimy and dishonest before the Crash^TM.

MOI,

[Christy]

I specifically outlined the types of behaviors and why they're bad. I didn't simply go "Hey, look at this. Stupid, right? Moving on..."


I'm aware of that. But I don't believe it's justified. "Wow, those particular atheists engage in such dumb behavior with that thread of theirs. Let's create a thread of our own so we can also engage in that dumb behavior."

There's no need to explain why something is screwy if the people who usually visit know why it is, then there's no need to explain why to them unless somebody doesn't know why it's screwy and asks why it is. The same way you didn't need to explain why you can't stand Richard Dawkins.

[KingsGambit]

This is a thread I would expect on Reddit.