Evolution (please don't take offense to this topic)

[Cubboo]

Yeah I guess I am   and no they wouldn't ban someone bc he's making them money lol they're not stupid

[Cubboo]

Lol of coarse they look at everyone's post... The way they described it to me was having to watch you like a baby and babysit you... Just sayin... If it makes you feel good to put me in the same category as the are "watching my post" then go right ahead but noone besides maybe you or one of your simple minded not believing in nothin xthiest < lol that's comical... Has complained about my post.

[falcon9]

Yeah I guess I am  

Am what, a "whiner crying in the kiddie's corner"?  Does that comfort you or, merely emphasize your immaturity?

... and no they wouldn't ban someone bc he's making them money lol they're not stupid

They don't ban someone for helping them to make money; they'd potentially ban someone for repeated violations of FC policies and their ToS, (like you've done, for instance).

[walksalone11]

Yeah I guess I am  

Am what, a "whiner crying in the kiddie's corner"?  Does that comfort you or, merely emphasize your immaturity?

... and no they wouldn't ban someone bc he's making them money lol they're not stupid

They don't ban someone for helping them to make money; they'd potentially ban someone for repeated violations of FC policies and their ToS, (like you've done, for instance).

If they were going to bann someone, they would have banned me long ago....and still may considering they don't make a dime from me being here.

[falcon9]

Lol of coarse they look at everyone's post...

Somehow, I doubt FC staff looks at posts in the "coarse" way which you do.

The way they described it to me was having to watch you like a baby and babysit you... Just sayin...

Surprisingly enough, I don't believe your mere assertion of this and without external evidence, suspect it's a self-serving 'interpretation' instead.

If it makes you feel good to put me in the same category as the are "watching my post" then go right ahead but ...

But nothing; if you want to believe that FC staff isn't watching your posts for a third violation of their ToS and policies, you are indeed 'mind-blind'.

... maybe you or one of your simple minded not believing in nothin xthiest < lol that's comical...

There's nothing humorous about your semi-illiteracy, (which is not accounted for by a dumb use of a smartphone).

... noone Has complained about my post.

You've guessed incorrectly there too.

[falcon9]

If they were going to bann someone, they would have banned me long ago....and still may considering they don't make a dime from me being here.

Unless you've violated FC's ToS or policies repeatedly, (like "Cubboo" has done), I doubt FC would ban you for simply participating here without making either you or they much money.

[Falconer02]

That quite from Darwin says nothing about him being agnostic... That's how you interpreted it...

Is it? I do not see how it could be interpreted any other way (unless you can show he was dabbling in other major religions?). Because he blatantly denounces the Abrahamic god and the bible right there. No doubt that means he does not believe in such a tyrannical god (as he put it). That would make anyone assume he is agnostic. Unless you can refute this claim after he did all of his research? To drive my point home though-

"“I can hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.”

“I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God.”

"The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic"

- Darwin, 1880

Please explain how I'm not interpreting these correctly as well.

Also that present from kholer is over a month old I just left it on there... Although I have made over 2000 from that blog in five months... Wish he'd let me keep it on my sig to grow my money more

Impressive! Though unfortunately against the rules. I just wanted to point out it was there so you could remove it. That's all.

[Cubboo]

Now that's a different post and no other way to interpret that... Guess he changed his mind which he has the right to do. And thanks but nah he took it off a while back guess I shoulda read more into the extent Of content i could put on my sig

And falcon9 they def wouldn't ban you from fc... Possibly from the forum... But they haven't banned me so I'm sure I'm good. And I highly doubt they are as you lean toward "sitting around waiting for me to make a third TOS mistake" and believe it if you want to or not lol I care less but they told me that if you don't believe me sen them an email and ask them... Post the ACTUAL RESPONSE ON HERE... If you think I'm lying

[falcon9]

And falcon9 they def wouldn't ban you from fc... Possibly from the forum...

Since I haven't violated any FC posting policies, (such as the one where you posted a "calling out" thread), why would they ban me from the forums?  They don't ban a member just because another member doesn't like what others post, (that's even mentioned in the FC disclaimer).

But they haven't banned me so I'm sure I'm good.

In this instance, that's exactly what I'd prefer you'd believe.  Everything is just peachy and you're definitely not whipping along at 95 m.p.h. on black ice, nope.

And I highly doubt they are as you lean toward "sitting around waiting for me to make a third TOS mistake" 

You could test that hypothesis by making a third ToS or policy violation if you truly believed that, (of course, I'd estimate that you lack the same courage of your convictions as you do in other subject matters).

I care less but they told me that if you don't believe me sen them an email and ask them... Post the ACTUAL RESPONSE ON HERE... If you think I'm lying

Regarding that whole burden of proof concept mentioned in another thread, (curiously not replied to after you initiated that particular exchange, as well as previously claiming to having "ignored" my posts); in a post in this thread you initially claimed that "The way they described it to me was having to watch you like a baby and babysit you ..." - message ID 543843.  If you wanted to provide evidence to support your claim, you'd post "the actual response on here" to back it up, otherwise some may wonder whether or not you're lying.

[Cubboo]

So you're saying you think I'm lying but you won't ask for yourself? That what you're saying? See as the world works people that are scared of an outcome don't really want to find the outcome out they simply ignore it and put it on someone else to prove it. Burden of proof isn't on me you're the one saying its false. Email them and ask if you not a scared little

[falcon9]

So you're saying you think I'm lying but you won't ask for yourself? That what you're saying?

No, however you've just provided additional evidence of your propensity for 'loosely interpreting' data.  That's why I mentioned that the burden of proof for making your claim lies with you, (which may indicate whether or not you lied - any 'assurances' you make to the contrary do not constitute evidence to the contrary).

See as the world works people that are scared of an outcome don't really want to find the outcome out they simply ignore it and put it on someone else to prove it.

Your speculations are specious unless you're applying them to yourself.  You made the initial claim; that means the initial burden of proof is on you, (much as you might try weaseling out of that responsibility).

Burden of proof isn't on me you're the one saying its false.

To reiterate; you made the claim concerning "talking to FC" and asserted the content.  That places the burden of proof on you as the claimant, (not on me for challenging your claim by doubting it).  You claimed it; prove it or withdraw it, (or you can keep trying to shift your responsibility onto me).

Email them and ask if you not a scared little

Produce evidence supporting your claim under the burden of proof responsibility, unless you're irresponsible as well as willfully illogical.

[Cubboo]

Nah no need to prove it I know the truth I'd just watch what I posted bud cause it looks like they're watching every post... You dispicable Xthiest you

[Cubboo]

Btw how much have you earned in ur two years here?

[falcon9]

Nah no need to prove it I know the truth ... 

Since you've demonstrated before that you and the truth are strangers, your avoidence of providing evidence to support your claim under the burden of proof emphasizes a unwillingness to take responsibility for the accuracy of what you claimed.  It's a quite simple matter; you claimed something for which evidence can be made available under the burden of proof, (backing up your specious assertions), but, apparently refuse to do so and instead, are engaging in shallow dodgings.  Those very avoidance manuever attempts of yours merely draw attention To that which you are trying to draw attention away from.  This casts doubt on your claim since your 'word' is without value in this instance.

[falcon9]

Btw how much have you earned in ur two years here?

What's that got to do with either evolution or, your having the burden of proof to supply evidence which would substantiate, (or, falsify), your initial claim?  Since you've already indicated that no such evidence will be forthcoming, your claim is a de facto unsupported one and disregarded as specious on that basis.