What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[SteelCurtain]

Okay. Fuck off then. We have all the links to the catechism. When we have a question as to what you think, we'll search it up. No reason for you to be here.

Utter stupidity. Are you ever embarrassed by some of the nonsense you write?

Quoting a passage from Ehrman or Craig is simply grist for the mill. If I didn't want to discuss with you, I could just watch YouTube videos of Hitchens, Harris, or Krauss.

If, in the context of discussion, you see me allowing any of the above to make my argument for me, please feel free to call me a hypocrite.

My very point. It's obvious when you do it. It's shitty forum etiquette. You've been asked to stop. And then you wonder why everyone you encounter has the same response to you.

Heh...what you want is for me to stop giving good answers to bad questions.

I want you to give your own 'good' answers, not someone else's. You know, discussion.

Maybe you are happy to have the same discussion over and over, but a lot of us aren't.

Then don't post. Sheesh, how hard is that?

So, your two options are to have the same conversation over and over or none at all?

We're here for discussion, and when Christians come in here and want to have the same conversation we've had 100 times before, acting like it's completely new information for all of us and playing the "gotcha" game, you'd be happy if we all trotted out the old Word files and posted pages at each other? What kind of twisted version of discussion are you interested in? So if you want to see our responses to the very same questions you are asking, search it up. If you want to spin off a thread from a response, by all means go ahead.

First, I'm the new guy. How do I know what you have and haven't discussed before? Second, so what if we are making the same arguments that have been made a hundred times before? Ever play chess? Think you're inventing something that Grand Masters haven't considered?

I'm developing MY skills as a player while simultaneously challenging yours. That's why we play the game, Mike.

First, there is a search function. Second, if we deign to respond, then we'll have the conversation. That part's not up to you. Sorry.

There is a fundamental difference between our approaches to this forum. I don't see it as an adversarial pissing match.

I did not say she hasn't been speedbumped or sent unofficial warnings. I said I hadn't had to. How many times were you PM'ed your first week? How many times did we have to explain our rules here? How many times were you publicly adamant that we are doing it wrong and we should play by your rules instead?

A lot. Because I didn't initially understand the 30/30 rule. Later, it was because you guys have posted a 30/30 Exception, but you don't allow newbies to actually invoke it. So, I waited it out. CL will do the same.

I don't think you had as much trouble understanding the rule as agreeing to follow it. It is simple. The link cannot do your arguing for you. It can support your own thoughts and ideas, it can be a cited source, but it cannot be the majority of your post.

The part that gets lifted when you are an established member is linking to personal sites like a blog or starting a thread with a link or video and some discussion.

Also, are you implying that we didn't know that Catholic_Lady was a woman before she posted her avatar? Or are you just attracted to her and projecting like you usually do?

Another mature response. Really, when you get mad, you ought to log off instead of posting.

Don't confuse my emotive language with anger, Randy. I am legitimately confused as to why you perceived that we changed our tact when posting at C_L when she posted her avatar. It revealed nothing surprising about her.

I am implying that you are shitty at this. You have presented us with a Catholic automaton who will repeat catechism and prepared dialogue on demand, and thence have done more for atheism on these boards in the last month or so than anyone in a while.

Spoken like someone who would like nothing more than to see fewer, solid Catholic answers posted in his atheist haven.

As if you would be MORE likely to consider Catholicism if I were silent. Really? I don't think so. But it was a nice try, Mike.

I welcome ANY voice here, so long as you are respectful about our rules. You have flouted the rules since day one. You continue to imply that the way that we run our own forum is wrong, and you continue to act baffled at the rules and break them. I was very diplomatic with you, giving you the benefit of the doubt for your first two weeks here. You've exhausted that.

You have not presented a single thing that I hadn't considered before you came to this forum. You have, however, given me a little insight into the lack of self that a Catholic must have, and the lack of ability to think independently and have one's own voice. So thanks for that, I think.