toldailytopic: Do you think TOL bans members too frequently, or not frequently enough

[Arthur Brain]

I won't respond to each and every point you've made. :dizzy: If I think it's an important point, I'll address it. If I think the issue has been covered sufficiently, I won't. :mario: In general, people state their most important point first. Usually I respond to this.

In general SD, posters tend to respond point for point, and the more genuine tend to address them without prevarication. If you think that when replying to others, people usually bring up their most 'important point' first then it's no wonder you have a skewed idea of what debate actually is. I don't ignore or glibly respond to someones third or fourth point simply because it's not at the start of their response to me.

lain:

 

[serpentdove]

That is why I said in general. News articles are opposite, incidentally.

By all means, have a point and I am happy to respond to it. Have the same point 4000 times and I won't.

 

[Arthur Brain]

That is why I said in general. News articles are opposite, incidentally.

And this is why I explained to you why you're wrong (in general). I'm quoting you here and responding to both parts of your post by way of example in order to make the point. This is how debate generally works. The first point could be the most 'meaty' but often enough it could be the third or fourth paragraph, or they could even be of equal 'weight'....pretty straightforward stuff.

By all means, have a point and I am happy to respond to it. Have the same point 4000 times and I won't.

I've had several, still awaiting proper address instead of editing/irrelevant soundbites/links, not that I expect/ed you to or to offer proof for your ongoing misrepresentation of people.

:e4e:

 

[serpentdove]

"...This is how debate generally works. The first point could be the most 'meaty' but often enough it could be the third or fourth paragraph, or they could even be of equal 'weight'....pretty straightforward stuff."

I respond to error first (Ga 5:9). I can't keep up with lies so I provide the truth of God's word (Ps. 119:142, 151, 160). oly: What you do with it is your business (McGee).

”You’re good. You’re good."

[Have a point :freak: and I am happy to respond] "I've had several..."

That are interesting to you.

"...still awaiting proper address instead of editing/irrelevant soundbites/links..."

Hold your breath. Pr 18:2 :chew:

"...not that I expect/ed you to or to offer proof for your ongoing misrepresentation of people."

Proof please. each:

 

[Arthur Brain]

I respond to error first (Ga 5:9). I can't keep up with lies so I provide the truth of God's word (Ps. 119:142, 151, 160). oly: What you do with it is your business (McGee).

Then you should start looking to your own posts before addressing anybody else's.

That are interesting to you.

That are relevant to the debate at hand. I don't 'cherry pick' the "interesting" parts of another posters response SD. I do the courtesy of answering as best I can whether I'm interested in a certain part of the ongoing or not. If you think your off topic soundbites are *interesting* then think again.

Hold your breath. Pr 18:2 :chew:

No thanks. I already know you have no intention of debating properly.

Proof please. each:

Your sig is an ongoing misrepresentation of certain posters. You know it, you've been called on it and have failed to provide the proof to justify it.

So, to echo you....:

Proof please. each:

 

[Town Heretic]

Do you think TOL bans members too frequently, or not frequently enough?

I think Question Mark was banned just about right. lain:

 

[Sherman]

Yep. That fellow was a :troll:. All he did was snip. He didn't add anything to the threads.

 

[serpentdove]

[I respond to error (Ga 5:9)] "Then you should start looking to your own posts..."

Proof please. each: You'll need more than your dashing good looks lain: to refute a point, NoBrain (Ac 17:11).

"I don't 'cherry pick' the "interesting" parts of another posters response SD..."

Then again, you don't have much to offer besides tea and crumpets (1 Ti 6:3-5). :freak:

"I do the courtesy of answering as best I can whether I'm interested in a certain part of the ongoing or not."

When you do not receive the answer you'd like (Eccl 10:2), :Commie: you do not have the same courtesy to move on to a new subject. :mario:

"I already know you have no intention of debating properly."

"I prefer clarity to agreement." ~ Dennis Prager

"Your sig is an ongoing misrepresentation of certain posters..."

My signature is totally awesome! :surf:

”Awesome"

 

[Arthur Brain]

Proof please. each: You'll need more than your dashing good looks lain: to refute a point, NoBrain (Ac 17:11).

And you'll need more than a mantra to disguise the fact you don't bring honest debate to the table SD, oh and 'NoBrain'? Isn't that what you'd refer to as an ad hominem? :think:

Then again, you don't have much to offer besides tea and crumpets (1 Ti 6:3-5). :freak:

Which even if true would still be more substantive than your constant off topic deflection and links.

When you do not receive the answer you'd like (Eccl 10:2), :Commie: you do not have the same courtesy to move on to a new subject. :mario:

I'd sooner you actually answered on point and addressed the issues at hand. Disagreement is hardly relevant when conversing with you as mentioned above.

"I prefer clarity to agreement." ~ Dennis Prager

So do I depending, none of which is to be found with you either way.

My signature is totally awesome! :surf:

If you find unjustified lies acceptable it's simply spectacular SD. Otherwise:

Proof please each:

 

[serpentdove]

[Signature :blabla:] "...njustified lies..."

My signature is awesome!

”Tommy Boy That was Awesome"

 

[Town Heretic]

My signature is awesome!

You misspelled awful. oly: Or would that be awfully...:think:

 

[WizardofOz]

Some administrators seem too friendly with members who are antagonistic toward God's word (Hos 3:1, Ps 26:5, Jas 4:4). Do you mean name names of members that I personally would not call "friend"? I don't care to do that. I prefer to discuss issues. each:

I wasn't looking for you to name names, I wanted an example of the "cozying up to" or being "too friendly with".

Ah well :idunno:

 

[serpentdove]

I wasn't looking for you to name names, I wanted an example of the "cozying up to" or being "too friendly with".

An example would be complimenting an antichrist (1 Jn 4:2-6).

 

[Arthur Brain]

My signature is awesome!

Well, at least you're now completely open about delighting in your lies then. Just don't pretend to care about or 'lecture' about truth or integrity anymore ok? You've just shown you have no regard for either. Well done....I s'pose....

lain:

 

[serpentdove]

Oh good grief...

"There's such a things as good grief. Just ask Charlie Brown." ~ Michael Scott, The Office

 

[Arthur Brain]

"There's such a things as good grief. Just ask Charlie Brown." ~ Michael Scott, The Office

There's such a thing as proof for assertions as well. Once you get around to supplying it for your misrepresentations and implications regarding others then you'll have room to talk SD.

Awaiting....

(Go on, you can do it.....can't you?)

 

[Town Heretic]

There's such a thing as proof for assertions as well. Once you get around to supplying it for your misrepresentations and implications regarding others then you'll have room to talk SD.

Awaiting....

(Go on, you can do it.....can't you?)

A rhetorical demand for proof...now all I need is a winged elephant and I'll have seen it.

 

[WizardofOz]

An example would be complimenting an antichrist (1 Jn 4:2-6).

Cite?

So, Knight should not compliment an atheist on a pro-life post, for example?

 

[serpentdove]

[An example would be complimenting an antichrist (1 Jn 4:2-6).] "Cite?"

You said: "I wasn't looking for you to name names..." ~ WizardofOz :dizzy: Citing a post would provide a name. lain:

You are here to bicker (Pr 10:32). I am not.

Christians should not cozy up to God-haters (Hos 3:1, Ps 26:5).