GREYWAR RESPONDS TO COMMENT COWARDS

Have you heard of CAPS LOCK or a Carriage Return?

from JoeUser Forums

     Calling out a blogger by name in the title of an article is borderline.

     Writing a rambling idiotic rant in said article is infantile and actually takes away any credibility you might have been building.

     Not bothering to figure out how to link to the article your screed is referring to means you are too lazy or technically challenged to blog.

     Finally, disabling comments on this same article just makes you a coward.

Site Meter
blogging
4,869 views 18 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
I didn't know anybody paid any attention to Aeryck's rants anymore... Silly me! ;~D
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Things with blogger's names in the title catch my eye through force of sheer bad ettiquette.
Galactic Civilizations IV
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yeah, but if you stare at aeiouandsometimesyck's (Kyrgyzstan called - they want their vowels back) "article" long enough, you can see Jesus! I'm gonna feature this on e-bay and give GoldenPalace casino first dibs....
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Geez....what a putz.....disallowing any comments....guess he doesnt take rejection or critisim very good.....
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
I am among the tech challenged , I just cannot figure out how to link an article. as for naming names in titles it seems to be the wave of the future here.. disagree with someone disprespect them publically.

to echo whip who was echoing bugs WHATTA MAROOOOOOOOON.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

H Rule thingy

just puts a horizontal line across the screen...

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hardly got the time to go through that guy's sort of rants knowing what it's usually about...
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
If aeryk was really fooling anyone into thinking he is representitive of Christianity, I might be worried. He doesn't spend time here doing anything but condemning people on a couple of select subjects.

I think even the most rabidly anti-religious folks here see that he is a crackpot and not at all the norm. I tried, really, really hard to steer him onto a course that would give him a legitimate voice. He believes, apparently, that talking incessantly about evolution and calling people names is his mandate from God.

We have two here that want to represent Christianity as a weak religion, full of people who dash from home to work to church, horrified of being unclean, willing to insult and abuse about Creationism and yet sit silently when numerous other moral causes are discussed. They are our forum pharisees, imho.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
sit silently when numerous other moral causes are discussed. They are our forum pharisees, imho


Which other causes were those? Begging your pardon.

Pharisees were the men who were learned in the law that the Messiah was supposed to fulfill. They were the scholars. Villifying scholars has always been a dangerous part of any totalitarian regime -- give it what title you'd like.

It might be argued that academics should therefore stay out of politics so that politics would do the same. It doesn't quite work that way because silence is a big fat killer.

So I'll be a Pharisee -- a dogmatic doubter perhaps some of you think. You have your reason.

The Aeryck's and Preacherman's of the world don't concern me except as a bit of mental masturbation once in awhile. It's those of you Christians of quiet desparation who fascinate me.

cheers
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Pharisees were the men who were learned in the law that the Messiah was supposed to fulfill. They were the scholars. Villifying scholars has always been a dangerous part of any totalitarian regime -- give it what title you'd like.


True, they were scholars and academics in the Jewish law. Hoever, they seemed to prefer throwing their titles and education around, when simple dialogue was called for. They also prefered accusations ending with a question mark, to sincere inquiry(Much like too many scholars and academics of today).
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Which other causes were those? Begging your pardon."


Basically everything other than Evolution and Abortion.

Pharisees were also people who valued their religious esteem more than they cared for their fellow man. They spent their time focusing on the law, on sin, on condemnation, and ignored the rest.

Methinks you are making a point out of irritation, Myrrander. I'd be willing to bet that you could quote to ME the passages where Jesus slams the Pharisees, just as easily as I can quote them to you.

If so, you know what I mean when I talk about folks who care more about "spiritual cleanliness" and doctrinal details than souls.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
The title thing is annoying, he just switches his titles constantly so you think it's something you haven't read before. He's also on occassion changed or removed portions of the content, or deleted/disabled comments after discussion has begun.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

I've been navigating from the sidebar lately

Thats where I normally operate from as well and title swapping is just cheesy and cheap. I wish there were "Trolling" options for the article itself.

Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Basically everything other than Evolution and Abortion.


You've missed my articles on energy issues then. As well as a host of other things I've written about.

Jesus had to discredit the Pharisees because they wanted him to actually fulfill the prophecies his "father" put into place. *shrug* They get an unfair bad rap.

Evolution is important to me because it blows my mind to think that more people believe that an invisible entity blew on some dirt and made a man rather than man is the product of a process of adaptation and natural selection.

You want it both ways, Baker, you want to be the righteouss skeptic. Good luck with that.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
The title thing is annoying, he just switches his titles constantly so you think it's something you haven't read before. He's also on occassion changed or removed portions of the content, or deleted/disabled comments after discussion has begun


Try posting an opposing view with links to prove/backup that view,they just get deleted.
It seems that he has deleted the article he wrote on my article.
Yet he didnt make any comments on my blogg at all perhaps he thought he would get deleted(which I would not do, I hate censorship)
Has he even posted a comment anywhere other than his own blogg??
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
*boggle*

WTF are you talking about Myrrander? Why would your articles have anything to do with the "aeryk squad"?

You have to be the most intellectually vain person... Did you think I was talking about you? I didn't realize that even when you smacked me earlier.

How the hell could you be a "Pharisee"? You don't claim to be religious, you don't impose religious law on anyone. Pharisees were "whited sepulchers". You're "sepulcher" inside and out.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
it appears i have missed the article, the links go to "no such article"

can anyone fill me in?
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
'Try posting an opposing view with links to prove/backup that view,they just get deleted.'
Ain't that the truth, piers38 ...

Aeryck posted a recent thread (he's deleted it since, of course) called 'Creationism? Still unchallenged!' A number of people, myself included, submitted comments challenging it. So ... he deletes our comments, and claims that the title continues to stand! (Well, you've got to give him credit for chutzpah!)

I'd point out the dangers of revisionism to him - after all, he seems dead against it when it involves the scriptures - but I doubt my comment would remain undeleted long enough for the message to sink in ...