Posted: Feb 13, 2018 3:16 am
jamest wrote:I'll do whatever the fuck I want to do Thommo, whenever the fuck I feel like doing it. In case you hadn't noticed, I'm not intimidated by atheists, even when they're trying desperately to be intimidating.
I don't like your fucking attitude, as you don't like mine. The difference between us is that I'll answer your posts where I see rational merit, whereas you only ever address mine with the intent of trying to make me look like a daft cunt.
No, that's not the difference.
The difference is that you asked what you could address, and when I answered in a perfectly civil tone you got the hump and started swearing. The reason I gave that more extensive explanation was that when SAM gave the rather more terse response that you could address the OP you got sarky with him as though you didn't understand what he meant.
Now, I'm not telling you what to do, I'm answering your question. That is what you could do to address some of the earlier things in a reasonable and substantive way. But nonetheless you're absolutely correct that you aren't obliged to be reasonable or substantive, or indeed reply at all. But if you do reply, then it's also equally correct that anyone can comment on the unreasonableness and lack of substantiation.
I have no clear idea why you're waffling on about intimidation though, a case of methinks the lady doth protest too much, perhaps? Who knows. For the record, no, I'm not trying to intimidate you or make you look like a cunt. I'm trying to elicit a substantive post that addresses some of the naked claims made by you in the thread (or any other thread) and fleshes them out with some reason. Maybe that would even make for a good discussion, if you can apply this intelligence you keep assuring us you have.