It's amazing how you've amassed such a MONUMENTAL amount of "416" THANKS in a row? Are you truly that popular? Obviously, what you have to bring to the table is welcomed with open arms. I'm totally perplexed.
Spammers wasteland
- Thread starter Delmar
- Start date
- Status
It's amazing how you've amassed such a MONUMENTAL amount of "416" THANKS in a row? Are you truly that popular? Obviously, what you have to bring to the table is welcomed with open arms. I'm totally perplexed.
Over 10,000 of your Thanks are from Tam
And, how do you KNOW this? And, why would you care?
PJ, do you notice how annoying you are at times? You have a tendency to bounce back and forth? Kinda strange, don't ya think? I really don't KNOW if you're a friend or foe? Know what I mean?
I've Thanked you 1,000 times
Then, why do you "smart off" once in awhile? I don't get it? You're a living "Paradox."
:chuckle:
justified by faith in Baptism (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm#818)
believe in Christ (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm#836)
believe in Christ and have been properly baptized (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm#838)
:spam:
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Sigh. If by "never", you mean some decimalic portion of 1% of his spamming posts, I suppose that's both technically correct and not the point at all for my inquiry.
He's certainly free to refer to anyone repeatedly as a sodomite and it be condoned. I was looking for clarification on infractions, not posts being moved. And as to why some are exempt when utilizing terms like sodomite, while others are multi-infracted for exponentially less crude and profane references.
I'm wanting a bit of clarity as to why correctly referring to a condescending woman with doctrinal innovations as a weaker vessel is worthy of two infractions and bans, but disgusting constant non-applicable terms like sodomite get no such attention other than laughter and endorsement.
And I was inquiring about others as well for incessant disruptive behavior without addressing OP subject matter an overwhelming majority of the time. And the page-filling constant drive-by posts of some who never address thread information, but solely make personal comments about all but agreeing posters.
I'm attempting to find out much disparity there is in the subjective double standards so I can stay within the boundaries.
Just curious what the bias ratio is so I can conduct myself according to that fraction.
If you are not happy with the way this forum is moderated, don't let the door hit you in the backside on the way out.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
they know who they are
Well said.
It looks as if you're being, ever drawn into the "Ultimate Maelstrom of Uncertainty?" Wandering on and ever searching for answers, for which there is none. Everywhere you look there is no escape. You close your eyes tightly and seek reality once more, yet, the darkness your eyelids bring is insufficient to your circumstance. That darkness brings little relief. Once you re-open your eyes you see that nothing has changed, you're still confined to yet, another type of darkness. One that brings you no closer to the answers, the answers which lead you to peace and safety. You find yourself betwixt the world you knew best and the world you now see before you. Escape is near yet far away. Your thoughts race forward yet, in some strange contortion of time, they remain still. Within the confusion that has become the confinement of your own, inner mind you continue to seek answers that cannot be reasoned with nor grasped by any form of logic or reason. There is no path to follow, no stars to guide your path. Your future remains uncertain yet, that uncertainty brings forth an otherworldly and inevitable certainty. You ask, "Will I remain where I am or will I awaken to a more perilous, world of complex ideas, thoughts and fears?" For which is worse to accept, this temporary imprisonment or face what lies ahead?
Yep.
Everyone should and does KNOW who and what they are.
Ah, come on Nangster, you're too cranky to have Brothers and Sisters anyway.
If your phone is running off your WIFI they both will display the same IP.
It was the manner in which you used the verse as a bludgeon that was unacceptable. That was not the intent behind Paul's admonition to husbands. TOL has very little tolerance for attacking people for their race or other things they cannot change such as their gender.
Doctrinal disagreement is not a reason to verbally abuse someone. Report it instead of making the situation worse, please.
- Status