(September 3, 2012 at 2:54 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: I've made my conditions clear. You want something from me, you better get to work. If you're too lazy, you get goose egg.

Now go.

Vinny who buggers the arse of the Holy Spirit,

You're a liar and the Lying Buggered Holy Spirit who is supposed to dwell in you is a lying piece of excrement.

Look, I'm blaspheming the Holy Spirit on your behalf. It's easy to do it. You're not going to be struck by lightning. You tell lies - that's worse than blasphemy.

lol, where does it say that?

(September 3, 2012 at 2:54 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: I've made my conditions clear. You want something from me, you better get to work.

All you've got to do is blaspheme. If you do that then you'll prove the guy wrong.

Why would you choose not to do this? Unless you can't blaspheme because you're actually a christian?

A witch...a witch! Lol, c'mon guys. Some people like to troll, let them have their fun.

(September 3, 2012 at 3:16 pm)Napoléon Wrote:

(September 3, 2012 at 2:54 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: I've made my conditions clear. You want something from me, you better get to work.

All you've got to do is blaspheme. If you do that then you'll prove the guy wrong.

Why would you choose not to do this? Unless you can't blaspheme because you're actually a christian?

I'm waiting for my demands to be met. What's so hard about meeting two measly conditions? Are you ashamed of publicly stating your position? Do you not know how lists work Mandisa?

(September 3, 2012 at 3:48 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: I'm waiting for my demands to be met. What's so hard about meeting two measly conditions? Are you ashamed of publicly stating your position? Do you not know how lists work Mandisa?

Sorry I missed your demands.

I'll go back and read now.

Regardless though, it would be so simply to prove the guy wrong wouldn't it?

*edit* just read them lmao, you've got to be trolling.

(September 3, 2012 at 4:12 pm)Napoléon Wrote:

(September 3, 2012 at 3:48 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: I'm waiting for my demands to be met. What's so hard about meeting two measly conditions? Are you ashamed of publicly stating your position? Do you not know how lists work Mandisa?

Sorry I missed your demands.

I'll go back and read now.

Regardless though, it would be so simply to prove the guy wrong wouldn't it?

Yes it would actually.

But I don't like the way he asked. He's not being genial.

So quid pro quo, really.

Go over my posts and you'll find I wasn't a jerk to anybody who wasn't a jerk to begin with.

(September 3, 2012 at 4:15 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Go over my posts and you'll find I wasn't a jerk to anybody who wasn't a jerk to begin with.

Buddy, just embrace the inner asshole......works for alot of us, no sense trying to argue your way out of being who you are.

I appreciate this is backtracking somewhat but this thread moves awfully fast (notwithstanding our resident New York Scouse Mafioso cabbie littering up the place) but I just have to clarify something.

(September 2, 2012 at 4:01 pm)apophenia Wrote:

(September 2, 2012 at 3:24 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

---

Clearly they do enjoy those things, otherwise I rather suspect they wouldn't bother. The point, however, is not that they went to investigate the dead bird but that they do it as a group, calling to each other such that everyone gets to eat rather than just one selfish individual as animals are supposed to be, at least according to those I've seen who hold that only humans are capable of such altruism. Note that there is no need for them to do this: they forage for food as a group, as this naturally gives them a greater chance of finding it. However, finding the dead bird means they have located a (potential) food source; it's in the best interests of the bird/s that found it to keep it to themselves. There is no requirement for the discoverer/s to tell the rest of the group. Yet they do.

---

Interesting. Thank you for the elaboration. I didn't get that nuance from the initial presentation.

Honesty compels me to point out that I made those comments before I'd read the BBC Nature article. Naughty of me, I know, but I was simply going off the quote from the article shared by downbeatplumb and Atom's response. I'm afraid I allowed our particulate friend to lead me off track into uncharted areas, so I'm not surprised you didn't get such a nuance as it didn't form part of the presentation.

However, misguided as it is, I still feel that the response I gave stands on its own merits as a workable scenario in answer to Atom's red herring queries.

(September 3, 2012 at 2:54 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: I've made my conditions clear. You want something from me, you better get to work. If you're too lazy, you get goose egg.

Now go.

Failtroll is fail. You make a request that involves a new thread and participation of multiple people over a period of time, all the while with you having the potential to jump in and say "we didn't get enough people to participate." We made a request of you that involves you spending 5 minutes typing some of the meanest, nastiest things you can think of and directing them at Yahweh (and we've even been helping you with it). So, I'll tell you what: you make a request that requires 5 minutes of my time and minimal effort and I'll do it. What do you say, you sad excuse for a troll, you?

(September 3, 2012 at 2:58 pm)5thHorseman Wrote: 24 pages in and i'm wondering if im the only atheist with ever changing morals. One large advantage to not being in the godsquad.

I love that and it really makes more sense. Different situations require different responses and religious people could stand to learn from it. I see a lot of horrible, barbaric rules in the Bible that might fit for a stone age culture, but when I compare them to today's world, they don't fit and are better off being acknowledged as relics of a time long past.