The "Cultural Context" Excuse

[Huggy Bear]

LOL, that bee thing was from YEARS ago?! That's really funny. He must have a document on his computer or iPad with a running list of factual errors people have made over the years for easy reference when he's run out of steam.

Huggy, you're really something.

Actually I don't... train wrecks tend to be easily remembered.

[The Grand Nudger]

See why it's so much fun, he even gets defensive about it, lol.

[Huggy Bear]

He's got it bookmarked, for sure, lol.  Who's debating,. Huggy....what debate?  I accepted your snakeman hypothesis (I;m the only one that;s done so) and asked you to clarify the finer points......???

The answers to these questions would demonstrably prove both your reimagining of the text and the accuracy of the fucking bible.  You should be elated to have the opportunity.  Instead, you'd prefer to talk about -anything- else....and then bitch about obfuscation?

*emphasis mine*

I've never put forth any "snakeman" hypothesis.

If you still think my position is that the serpent was originally a "dragon" or any sort reptilian creature for that matter, then you haven't been paying attention.

The fact that you continue to use the phrases "dragon" and "snakeman" after I made my position clear shows that you are trying to obfuscate, rather than represent my position accurately.

Hence why I'm done trying to have this discussion with you.

[Huggy Bear]

See why it's so much fun, he even gets defensive about it, lol.

Me defensive? Nah.

The defensive one would be whoever decided to permanently disable my sig where that quote was prominently displayed...

[The Grand Nudger]

*emphasis mine*

I've never put forth any "snakeman" hypothesis.

So we aren't serpent-human hybrids...after all?  Then why does the babble..according to you, say that we are?

The fact that you continue to use the phrases "dragon" and "snakeman" after I made my position clear shows that you are trying to obfuscate, rather than represent my position accurately.

There doesn;t seem to be any confusion between us or anyone else regarding what we're discussing.  Do you or do you not believe that we are hybridized creatures, the other half being the serpent of biblical fame?  

Hence why I'm done trying to have this discussion with you.

I don;t think that's why.  I think that you didn't realize what you'd done in proposing hybrids.  Now it;s time to pay the piper and your pockets are empty.

Me defensive? Nah.

The defensive one would be whoever decided to permanently disable my sig where that quote was prominently displayed...

Who would that be, and why did it happen?  More amusingly...why would you repost it here, again (and again and again and again), after than happened?  Now you're just being defensive about being defensive. I'd love to take this golden opportunity to embarrass you further...because it seems like you might be accusing me of something, lol. I;ve always been a proponent of your favorite forum post (and ofc I would be, as it's author). As staff......I argued -against- removing it...I keep telling you how much I enjoy seeing it, how it makes me giggle.

Jackass.

[LadyForCamus]

So...your response to his question about YOUR theology is, "hey, look over there at that mistake you made weeks and weeks ago!"

Nice one.  

No that's my response to someone who's only interested in obfuscation, and not in a serious debate.

Also I haven't forgot about your question, I just prefer to deal with one person at a time or else we'll be all over the place.

No...that is what it is called a "red herring." What are you attempting to demonstrate with it, exactly? That humans are fallible? We've all made errors from time to time. What do past errors have to do with the current discussion, and the specific questions posed to you?

[Huggy Bear]

*emphasis mine*

I've never put forth any "snakeman" hypothesis.

So we aren't serpent-human hybrids...after all?  Then why does the babble..according to you, say that we are?

Except you never used the term "serpent".

My point was the serpents original form had nothing to do with reptiles, the Hebrew word for the serpent is 'Nachash', which means "shining one", pleas tell me how that relates to reptiles?

The fact that you continue to use the phrases "dragon" and "snakeman" after I made my position clear shows that you are trying to obfuscate, rather than represent my position accurately.

There doesn;t seem to be any confusion between us or anyone else regarding what we're discussing.  Do you or do you not believe that we are hybridized creatures, the other half being the serpent of biblical fame?  

Hence why I'm done trying to have this discussion with you.

I don;t think that's why.  I think that you didn't realize what you'd done in proposing hybrids.  Now it;s time to pay the piper and your pockets are empty.

Anyone with half a brain that reads the bible can conclude that something happened genetically for the simple fact that the bible says that there were giants, last I looked Adam and Eve weren't giants.

Me defensive? Nah.

The defensive one would be whoever decided to permanently disable my sig where that quote was prominently displayed...

Who would that be, and why did it happen?  More amusingly...why would you repost it here, again (and again and again and again), after than happened?  Now you're just being defensive about being defensive.  I'd love to take this golden opportunity to embarrass you further...because it seems like you might be accusing me of something, lol.  I;ve always been a proponent of your favorite forum post (and ofc I would be, as it's author).  As staff......I argued -against- removing it...I keep telling you how much I enjoy seeing it, how it makes me giggle.  

Jackass.

*emphasis mine*

I highly doubt that.

I'm glad you find it amusing, expect to see it a lot more then.

[LadyForCamus]

Huggy, that would only serve to make YOU look like the stupid one, lol. I highly recommend leaving it buried where it belongs.

[The Grand Nudger]

Except you never used the term "serpent".

My point was the serpents original form had nothing to do with reptiles, the Hebrew word for the serpent is 'Nachash', which means "shining one", pleas tell me how that relates to reptiles?

That;s fine.  I have asked you what the orignial form of both ancestral man and ancestral serpent were, multipl;e times.  These are the things you'ds have to have some idea about to propose hybridization.  Care to answer those questions now......?

Anyone with half a brain that reads the bible can conclude that something happened genetically for the simple fact that the bible says that there were giants, last I looked Adam and Eve weren't giants.

I keep asking you what that genetic thing was, care to answer those questions now.....?

*emphasis mine*

I highly doubt that.

I'm glad you find it amusing, expect to see it a lot more then.

It's your call, but I wouldn't get banned over it if I were you.  Highly doubt whatever you like, but if you've been operating under the assumption that I censored you, you're a fucking moron.  I'd never have told you while I was staff..because staff don't discuss their deliberations with the members in question, and frankly...you don't deserve the courtesy even if we did.  Every time you've posted it, though, everytime you've made the implication that you made in this thread.....that's -why- it makes me smile.  I;ve privately known how much of an ass you were making of yourself...even though it clearly never dawned on you.  Just as you refuse to consider it now.

[Huggy Bear]

No that's my response to someone who's only interested in obfuscation, and not in a serious debate.

Also I haven't forgot about your question, I just prefer to deal with one person at a time or else we'll be all over the place.

No...that is what it is called a "red herring."   What are you attempting to demonstrate with it, exactly?  That humans are fallible?  We've all made errors from time to time.  What do past errors have to do with the current discussion, and the specific questions posed to you?

That's funny, should I point out how gleeful people get when they think I've made some grammatical error?

Whats good for the goose is good for the Gander.