(February 26, 2012 at 5:18 am)Aardverk Wrote: I'm pleased to see that you are moving closer to my viewpoint renew. Your meaning is not very clear sometimes (typing errors I expect) but it would be petty for me to go through your errors point by point so I will resist temptation.Yes, I can agree petty is a good reference point.
(February 26, 2012 at 5:18 am)Aardverk Wrote: It was optional for soldiers to drink before battle but it was the norm. Remember this was way before the days when we realised that alcohol impaired judgement and coordination.From the beginning mankind knew exactly what alcohol does, tis why we like it so much, your back peddling on this one.
Quote:I believe in nothing, I know what my current understanding is, and until a fact comes along to change this current understanding, then I will expand on what I know to be my current understanding.. understand.
(February 26, 2012 at 5:18 am)Aardverk Wrote: I think I understand. That explains a lotWell I will assume you have not attained any further knowledge on a subject since you were what, a young adult?
Quote:You really assume a lot about me, however I do have a wonderful vivid imagination and yes at times I need it to work over time, quite wonderful at times, you should try it, great things have come about with vivid imagination.
(February 26, 2012 at 5:18 am)Aardverk Wrote: Except clarity perhaps.Come on AA, you can do better then that. Did you not just scold someone for childish manners? You know, the ones that think they know it all, are really annoying to the ones that do.
(February 26, 2012 at 5:18 am)Aardverk Wrote: You and I do not know what the 'beliefs of his god' are so your judgement on that issue is patently questionable. I give him the benefit of the doubt and believe that he was telling the truth as he perceived it.Then since you do not have any knowledge on the matter then perhaps you should not give a opinion.
(February 26, 2012 at 5:18 am)Aardverk Wrote: I don't believe in silencing anyone just because I disagree with them or dislike them.I am most cofident this is not true, however, it is your own, do what you will.
(February 26, 2012 at 5:18 am)Aardverk Wrote: I defend your equal right to do the same thing outside a religious gathering, no matter how disingenuous and obnoxious they thought you were. I would then also think that you had the courage of your conviction no matter how foolish and obnoxious some people thought you were.Thanks for the vote of confidence, however, no need for it. I am sure the oaf needs your confidence more then I do. Have you wrote to him telling him how much you admire his courage?
Quote: A belief is a thought, and to deter anyone from their thoughts is incomprehensive, there are ones who understanding when knowledge is being handed out, they are the same ones that know this man was full of nothing useful or educational. Should I assume you did?
(February 26, 2012 at 5:18 am)Aardverk Wrote: Sorry, you've lost me again. I haven't a clue what you mean.Try reading it again, then one more time if needed, it may come and it may not. Don't really know what to tell you after that.
Quote: I am not denying the man of his free speech. He can freely speak all he wants, if he did it naked running down the street, alright. It is the content of his speech that is in question.
(February 26, 2012 at 5:18 am)Aardverk Wrote: Excellent! We are in agreement. Why you criticised me for standing up for his right of free speech is beyond me. Yes, the content of his speech should certainly be questioned but not his right to speak and his bravery should not be disparaged just because we disagree with him.There you go again with the bravery thing, okay, he is your big brave oaf, I get it. So freedom of speech, two votes, bravery one vote.
(February 26, 2012 at 5:18 am)Aardverk Wrote: One small clarification. Remember where I inserted the dictionary definition of 'Bigot'? If you look immediately above that definition you you will see a solid line. That line is automatically inserted if you make two consecutive posts. You may well see it when someone is replying to several people and no one else has made a post since your previous post. I was not deliberately aiming it at you; it just happened to be a separate post that became attached to my earlier post which was directed to you. It was for the benefit of those few people who were making bigoted statements and obviously didn't realise what they were doing.Oh, I see. So the solid line means you are directing a post to another, without defing who the other is, or simply a generic post. My apologies, I took it as part of the generic post that you wrote to me.
Truly, AA, I am terribly bored with this subject now. Do take care, and perhaps we will be able to discuss another topic at another time.