(December 26, 2015 at 8:14 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(December 26, 2015 at 4:00 pm)Delicate Wrote: Talk about revisionist history and selective memory.

I don't throw the first insult, as a matter of principle. But if people feel like taking the discussion to a non-substantive direction, despite knowing it's not warranted or preferable, I'll oblige them. 

That rage you feel right now is the inevitable outcome of taking the discussion in the wrong direction.

Don't want to feel it anymore? Right the ship. 

Be a man for once in your life and take responsibility for the outcomes of your choices and the choices of your classmates. Because I will take you to school if you don't.

Lol, I'm a-scairt now.

I'll let you know when i want your advice. I don't take kindly to hypocritical words or being called names (look at your thread titles and OPs to see who did so first).

And cussing isn't "raging", boy. You're not worth that emotional investment anyway -- matter of fact, you ain't worth a pisshole drilled in a snowbank. But I know now how to get to you, child.

Now go play in the traffic -- the adults are talking here.

If you're looking at my thread titles you're not looking far back enough.

And you shouldn't claim to know who was first if you don't bother looking far back enough.

Also, chill pill buddy. You sound way too worked up over nothing.

(December 27, 2015 at 6:20 pm)Delicate Wrote:

(December 26, 2015 at 8:14 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Lol, I'm a-scairt now.

I'll let you know when i want your advice. I don't take kindly to hypocritical words or being called names (look at your thread titles and OPs to see who did so first).

And cussing isn't "raging", boy. You're not worth that emotional investment anyway -- matter of fact, you ain't worth a pisshole drilled in a snowbank. But I know now how to get to you, child.

Now go play in the traffic -- the adults are talking here.

If you're looking at my thread titles you're not looking far back enough.

And you shouldn't claim to know who was first if you don't bother looking far back enough.

Also, chill pill buddy. You sound way too worked up over nothing.

Reread it in a Foghorn Leghorn voice. It will help.

(December 27, 2015 at 6:23 pm)Crossless1 Wrote:

(December 27, 2015 at 6:20 pm)Delicate Wrote: If you're looking at my thread titles you're not looking far back enough.

And you shouldn't claim to know who was first if you don't bother looking far back enough.

Also, chill pill buddy. You sound way too worked up over nothing.

---

 Reread it in a Foghorn Leghorn voice. It will help.  

---

Delicates' thread titles, in order:  

Why the "There are so many interpretations of the Bible" claim is confused    11/03/2015  

Why atheism cannot escape absolute truth  11-05-2015 

Are all atheists this ill-informed about religion?    11-05-2015

Yes, Atheism is a Religion    12-22-2015

The New Atheists are back — and dumber than ever   

When Atheists Can't Think Episode 1: No Evidence for God?

Exposing the Intellectual Bankruptcy of Atheists Criticizing Religion

The only thread that is not an insult in the very first title of the post is the one in red - - - and that's because it's so stupid that a reader would assume it's a joke.

(December 27, 2015 at 8:35 pm)drfuzzy Wrote:

(December 27, 2015 at 6:23 pm)Crossless1 Wrote:

---

 Reread it in a Foghorn Leghorn voice. It will help.  

---

Delicates' thread titles, in order:  

Why the "There are so many interpretations of the Bible" claim is confused    11/03/2015  

Why atheism cannot escape absolute truth  11-05-2015 

Are all atheists this ill-informed about religion?    11-05-2015

Yes, Atheism is a Religion    12-22-2015

The New Atheists are back — and dumber than ever   

When Atheists Can't Think Episode 1: No Evidence for God?

Exposing the Intellectual Bankruptcy of Atheists Criticizing Religion

The only thread that is not an insult in the very first title of the post is the one in red - - - and that's because it's so stupid that a reader would assume it's a joke.

The first two are not insults at all.
The third wasn't intended as an insult, but I can see how one can take it as an insult.
The fourth isn't an insult.
The fifth and sixth do seem to be insults. Though I didn't intend it to be.

It's a mixed bag. Not all insulting.

Perhaps you have a cognitive bias that ignores evidence that doesn't fit with your a priori assumptions.

Perhaps you're a twat because you never really changed, you're a big phony just like EP

No, you're absolutely right. They're all on the lines of Nihil novi sub sole. Often heard, often seen, hence, not getting very much attention from me.

They're not an insult, but they are radiating ignorance or some intent to be provocative. Both possibilities aren't exactly playing the interesting field.

It doesn't seem like you are doing a very good job of winning over any hearts here at atheist forums.org, delicate, lol. Time to move along and drop your bs somewhere else.

(December 27, 2015 at 9:09 pm)Delicate Wrote:

(December 27, 2015 at 8:35 pm)drfuzzy Wrote: Delicates' thread titles, in order:  

Why the "There are so many interpretations of the Bible" claim is confused    11/03/2015  

Why atheism cannot escape absolute truth  11-05-2015 

Are all atheists this ill-informed about religion?    11-05-2015

Yes, Atheism is a Religion    12-22-2015

The New Atheists are back — and dumber than ever   

When Atheists Can't Think Episode 1: No Evidence for God?

Exposing the Intellectual Bankruptcy of Atheists Criticizing Religion

The only thread that is not an insult in the very first title of the post is the one in red - - - and that's because it's so stupid that a reader would assume it's a joke.

The first two are not insults at all.
The third wasn't intended as an insult, but I can see how one can take it as an insult.
The fourth isn't an insult.
The fifth and sixth do seem to be insults. Though I didn't intend it to be.

It's a mixed bag. Not all insulting.

Perhaps you have a cognitive bias that ignores evidence that doesn't fit with your a priori assumptions.

I thought we were in truce mode?   

Why the "There are so many interpretations of the Bible" claim is confused    11/03/2015  This could be seen as a general statement that some folks are confused, yes, and not an insult.  Except for the obvious implication that the poster is ready to tell us all the answers that they have and we do not.  That's insulting.

Why atheism cannot escape absolute truth  11-05-2015   Another title that MIGHT be construed as just a musing start of a conversation.  But you're on an atheist forum.  The implication is that you have an absolute proof to provide which SHOULD enlighten atheists.  So it's insulting.

Are all atheists this ill-informed about religion?    11-05-2015  That's an obvious slam.  Ill-informed is thinly veiled "stupid" and again, you are obviously going to fill in the gaps of our ignorance.

Yes, Atheism is a Religion    12-22-2015

The New Atheists are back — and dumber than ever     You admitted that "dumber than ever" might be an insult.  It's quite amazing that you claim it wasn't intended - and yes, you are referring to an article you read, but the implication is that "dumber than ever" probably also applies to us.

When Atheists Can't Think Episode 1: No Evidence for God?   Again, you admitted that "can't think" was somehow NOT intended as an insult.  
Exposing the Intellectual Bankruptcy of Atheists Criticizing Religion   "Intellectual Bankruptcy" - where did you get that one?  Yep, going on to a forum where most of the members are highly educated and starting a thread calling them intellectually bankrupt - - yeah, that's a compliment, they're just going to LOVE you and want to pay attention to everything you say.    


Yep.  Troll 101.   I hope you don't interact with people in real life like you have with us.  Because if you do, this is coming:                 
Stock up on fire extinguishers . . . dear.

Your reasoning is hypersensitive and absurd.

As for the 'dumber than ever' that was the title of the article.

Delicate has given a promise to try to treat everyone better. While I, too, remain skeptical, I think it's unfair to batter Delicate with the previous actions except as a way of expressing our reasons for said skepticism.

Let's give this a chance. If the evidence is that D isn't treating us decently, going forward, then we can return the favor...otherwise we're burning a bridge before it's built and frankly acting in a prejudicial manner little different from our complaints against Delicate.

So everyone, let's please relax and try to forge a new path. Please. That goes for both sides.