God is a Fake

[falcon9]

You and duroz; you and Falconer; were also "gossiping."

You tell me or show me ANY posts where I was gossiping.... ....posts I made were made directly in response TO the (a) poster, I did NOT talk ABOUT somebody else.

I requested some evidence too, (in the form of message ID'd quoted posts), however, am disinclined to hold my breath awaiting such proof to the claim.

[jcribb16]

Quote from: SherylsShado on Today at 05:47:12 pm
No, I said what I meant---the quote was FOR "jcribb".

Quote from: Falcon9:
So, a post made in a public forum where any member reading that forum can, (but it wasn't intended for anyone else), is _not_ gossip now?  Next, you'll be redfining 'rock' as 'an edible substance'?

Actually, pop rocks are edible!!

[SherylsShado]

@falcon9

no, jokes are not always of hostile intent...if that's how it's been for you then that's rough.

I don't know why you take every word I say the opposite way...unless you're doing it on purpose.  I've seen you do it with others as well.  I'm not sure if you re-post everyone's posts sentence-by-sentence to get some clarification or if you're doing it on purpose to get a rise.  
 
Which is it?

@jcribb:  Pop rocks are so awesome...

[falcon9]

Actually, pop rocks are edible!!

They aren't however, actually "rocks" are they?  Brand name misnomers hardly count.  

[jcribb16]

Don't get me wrong- you (Falcon9) are completely right in your response to this, but the religious may generally have major emotional problems that they're coping with. The major fault in this attack is that the religious who are going through such problems shouldn't be debating their beliefs in the first place. It's not smart. It's also majorly hypocritical if the religious are getting angry at a willing debater in a debate forum.

I see where you are going with this however, I didn't want to presume any unspecified inherent emotional problems while discussing the purely religious aspects posted.  That said, there was some blending of thread topics, (by Sheryls in this instance and others, in other instances), in which "off-topic" religious subjects were not posted in the D+D subforum.  As D+D is a subforum of the off-topic forum, this does not preclude debate + discussion, (as assumed by a few religious adherents).  Somehow, a couple of posters have gotten the notion that they are free to post unsupported religions beliefs while attempting to suppress the same freedom to express dissenting views/challenges to preconceptions.  In that, you are correct about their hypocrisy.

Anyway, I can recall that I've personally been in 2 of these instances where I was unaware of what the person was going through (one suffered from major depression and the other had had an abortion when they were younger). Once I learned of their history, I felt awkward so I purposely ran the argument into a ditch since the emotional responses from the people were angrily clouding what I wanted to just be a casual debate.

In this particular instance, (another thread where the OP was asking xtians to pray for them concerning unspecified troubles), the specifics were not posted.  Rather than assume them, my suggestion was to seek more effective solutions than wishful-thinking, ('prayer').  That suggestion, while more pragmatic than the pseudo-emotional comfort alternatives offered by others, was nonetheless intended to be helpful, rather than callus.

Gossip/name-calling untruthfully

[falcon9]

no, jokes are not always of hostile intent...if that's how it's been for you then that's rough.

That's a two-way street.

I don't know why you take every word I say the opposite way...unless you're doing it on purpose.  

There have been a few instances of your intent being unclear, (except to you?).  Regardless, there's no evidence of my taking "every word" you "say the opposite way"{intended?}, beyond your claim.

I've seen you do it with others as well.

Where?  Post examples in context, (message IDs would also go far in substantiating your claim).

I'm not sure if you re-post everyone's posts sentence-by-sentence to get some clarification or if you're doing it on purpose to get a rise.  
Which is it?

Neither.  I quote what I'm replying to to retain the context, (which retains the meaning of the words posted, rather than some vague alternate intention which isn't apparent in the words posted).  That way, when somebody chooses to make faulty allegations which lack the basis of evidence, such quoted posts they've made are available to keep the subject in context.

[SherylsShado]

Quote from falcon9---

I didn't think you would however, your "the quote was for her and her only", (yet was publically posted), is niminally 'gossip', regardless of whether you admit or not.

@falcon9
I've posted several posts to individuals on FC before including many to you...those weren't 'gossip' either unless men have a different definition of 'gossip' than women.  (Which could very well be because I used to think women "owned" the word and then I've heard some guys gossip and ...I think they're better at it!)

[falcon9]

Don't get me wrong- you (Falcon9) are completely right in your response to this, but the religious may generally have major emotional problems that they're coping with. The major fault in this attack is that the religious who are going through such problems shouldn't be debating their beliefs in the first place. It's not smart. It's also majorly hypocritical if the religious are getting angry at a willing debater in a debate forum.

I see where you are going with this however, I didn't want to presume any unspecified inherent emotional problems while discussing the purely religious aspects posted.  That said, there was some blending of thread topics, (by Sheryls in this instance and others, in other instances), in which "off-topic" religious subjects were not posted in the D+D subforum.  As D+D is a subforum of the off-topic forum, this does not preclude debate + discussion, (as assumed by a few religious adherents).  Somehow, a couple of posters have gotten the notion that they are free to post unsupported religions beliefs while attempting to suppress the same freedom to express dissenting views/challenges to preconceptions.  In that, you are correct about their hypocrisy.

Anyway, I can recall that I've personally been in 2 of these instances where I was unaware of what the person was going through (one suffered from major depression and the other had had an abortion when they were younger). Once I learned of their history, I felt awkward so I purposely ran the argument into a ditch since the emotional responses from the people were angrily clouding what I wanted to just be a casual debate.

In this particular instance, (another thread where the OP was asking xtians to pray for them concerning unspecified troubles), the specifics were not posted.  Rather than assume them, my suggestion was to seek more effective solutions than wishful-thinking, ('prayer').  That suggestion, while more pragmatic than the pseudo-emotional comfort alternatives offered by others, was nonetheless intended to be helpful, rather than callus.

Gossip/name-calling untruthfully

Where, in any of the posted quoted above as an 'example', was there Any "Gossip/name-calling untruthfully"?  Was it "Falconer02's" speculation about "major emotional problems"?  If so, my response to that portion is also quoted above.  Something else?

[falcon9]

Quote from falcon9---...your "the quote was for her and her only", (yet was publically posted), is niminally 'gossip', regardless of whether you admit or not.

I've posted several posts to individuals on FC before including many to you...those weren't 'gossip' either unless men have a different definition of 'gossip' than women.  (Which could very well be because I used to think women "owned" the word and then I've heard some guys gossip and ...I think they're better at it!)

No, it is the content and context which make it "gossip", (the fact that you stated the post was intended "for her and her alone" while it was implicitly directed via context to another is what constitutes "gossip" - 'talking about others, rather than to them').  While both men and women, (and boys and girls), do so, the definition doesn't change:

"gos·sip
[gos-uhp] noun, verb, -siped or -sipped, -sip·ing or -sip·ping.

noun
2. light, familiar talk or writing.
3. Also, gos·sip·er, gos·sip·per. a person given to tattling or idle talk.
5. Archaic - a friend, especially a woman.

verb (used without object)
6. to talk idly, especially about the affairs of others; go about tattling." --dictionary.com

[jcribb16]

Don't get me wrong- you (Falcon9) are completely right in your response to this, but the religious may generally have major emotional problems that they're coping with. The major fault in this attack is that the religious who are going through such problems shouldn't be debating their beliefs in the first place. It's not smart. It's also majorly hypocritical if the religious are getting angry at a willing debater in a debate forum.

I see where you are going with this however, I didn't want to presume any unspecified inherent emotional problems while discussing the purely religious aspects posted.  That said, there was some blending of thread topics, (by Sheryls in this instance and others, in other instances), in which "off-topic" religious subjects were not posted in the D+D subforum.  As D+D is a subforum of the off-topic forum, this does not preclude debate + discussion, (as assumed by a few religious adherents).  Somehow, a couple of posters have gotten the notion that they are free to post unsupported religions beliefs while attempting to suppress the same freedom to express dissenting views/challenges to preconceptions.  In that, you are correct about their hypocrisy.

Anyway, I can recall that I've personally been in 2 of these instances where I was unaware of what the person was going through (one suffered from major depression and the other had had an abortion when they were younger). Once I learned of their history, I felt awkward so I purposely ran the argument into a ditch since the emotional responses from the people were angrily clouding what I wanted to just be a casual debate.

In this particular instance, (another thread where the OP was asking xtians to pray for them concerning unspecified troubles), the specifics were not posted.  Rather than assume them, my suggestion was to seek more effective solutions than wishful-thinking, ('prayer').  That suggestion, while more pragmatic than the pseudo-emotional comfort alternatives offered by others, was nonetheless intended to be helpful, rather than callus.

Gossip/name-calling untruthfully

Where, in any of the posted quoted above as an 'example', was there Any "Gossip/name-calling untruthfully"?  Was it "Falconer02's" speculation about "major emotional problems"?  If so, my response to that portion is also quoted above.  Something else?

[jcribb16]

Actually, pop rocks are edible!!

They aren't however, actually "rocks" are they?  Brand name misnomers hardly count.  

I didn't say they were.

[SherylsShado]

@falcon9

I posted a quote FOR jcribb.  If you're that insecure that you have to make more out of it...whatever.  The fact that you have is a joke. 

[jcribb16]

@falcon9

I posted a quote FOR jcribb.  If you're that insecure that you have to make more out of it...whatever.  The fact that you have is a joke. 

Thank you for the quote for me!  I think the issue of it is how the other poster took it personally. 

[falcon9]

I posted a quote FOR jcribb.  If you're that insecure that you have to make more out of it...whatever.  The fact that you have is a joke.  

Quote from: SherylsShado on Today at 15:02:23-
"jcribb: "Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience." - anon

Thank you for the quote for me!  I think the issue of it is how the other poster took it personally.  

So, in the context of that portion of this thread, that "quote" wasn't about anyone in particular and was entirely random, (yet _for_ one particular person?)  Here's another from you, (not aimed at you two 'girls' in particular):

Quote from: SherylsShado on Today at 15:44:28-
"wow, it's like neither ever finished grade school."

[jcribb16]

I posted a quote FOR jcribb.  If you're that insecure that you have to make more out of it...whatever.  The fact that you have is a joke.  

Quote from: SherylsShado on Today at 15:02:23-
"jcribb: "Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience." - anon

Thank you for the quote for me!  I think the issue of it is how the other poster took it personally.  

So, in the context of that portion of this thread, that "quote" wasn't for anyone in particular and was entirely random?  Here's another from you, (not aimed at you two 'girls' in particular):

Quote from: SherylsShado on Today at 15:44:28-
"wow, it's like neither ever finished grade school."

Quotes from: Falcon9:
Are you still stuck on that 'junior highschool girlish' immaturity thing of yours?  If so, you omitted the obligatory *giggle* this time. 

So does discourtesy however, that was not my intent.  I can resume calling you "jbribb16" without a hitch.

That seems to be what happens most often when they run out of steam, (being unable to produce a cognizant refutation). It may be junior highschool girlish however, it doesn't qualitively add to their monthly post counts.