Questions You Have Always Pondered On

[Autumnpuma 0]

I have accepted that I should be more empathetic to people who identify themselves with their religion. I have said I would work on that part of my nature.

Thank you. Mission accomplished.

[yurp 0]

Thank you. Mission accomplished.

*sigh*

Sorry Mike - You didn't accomplish that misson. Alehop and Brad did.

The mission you accomplished was quite different. You showed that many people are intollerant, abusive and unwilling to openly or fairly discuss religious questions.

When you understand that, perhaps (like me) you will apologise (to atheists and theists alike) for your behaviour rather than bragging about it.

Look to your conscience.

[Autumnpuma 0]

*sigh*

Sorry Mike - You didn't accomplish that misson. Alehop and Brad did.

The mission you accomplished was quite different. You showed that many people are intollerant, abusive and unwilling to openly or fairly discuss religious questions.

When you understand that, perhaps (like me) you will apologise (to atheists and theists alike) for your behaviour rather than bragging about it.

Look to your conscience.

This is a prime example of why I dislike people such as you. You have clearly baited and made a joke out of people's beliefs in this thread and when I call you on it, you act like the victim. You become all reasonable and innocent. Your posts reveal the truth. Do I really need to go through this thread, isolate your posts and explain to you where you're being rude and obnoxious, arrogant and full of contempt? I would do that if I honestly thought you didn't already know.

I'll let my second post in this thread demonstrate what I mean. I pointed out an irony that the Bible teaches that directly related to an atheist's desire for proof and your response was to link an absurd website and reply with sarcasm and derision. That is indicative of almost *all* your posts in this thread. You only became more civil *after* I posted my thoughts. I challenge anyone reading this to go back and see for themselves (and beware any of Adam's posts that have an edit date after my post objecting to his).

My point was simple and correct. Treating another person's beliefs with open contempt and ridicule is rude and obnoxious. So too is hi-jacking Steph's thread for the sake of it. To top it all off, you haven't the decency to apologize for it; only to allegedly feel sad that someone was objecting to what you were doing. It's quite possible to have a discussion about another person's beliefs without treating them like a fool for those beliefs.

EDIT: Instead of this endless bickering, I'll let you have the last word in this thread, Adam. I'll not respond to whatever you want to write in response to this. I would extend the offer of a discussion with you where I can show you, by my own example, what it means to have such a discussion while still respecting the other person's beliefs. I firmly believe that if we have such a discussion, you will be the first to resort to ridicule and contempt because I think that's in your nature and can't be avoided.

I would prefer the discussion to be about the 'contradictory' elements you say are in the Bible. I would be most willing to clear up *any* questions you have about the Bible. Any other aspect of this thread would be quite a short discussion (and has quite frankly been discussed to death here), but I'm all up for it as well. I have never made this offer to any poster here and I likely wont ever again.

[yurp 0]

Thank you. Mission accomplished.

This is a prime example of why I dislike people such as you. You have clearly baited and made a joke out of people's beliefs in this thread and when I call you on it, you act like the victim. You become all reasonable and innocent. Your posts reveal the truth. Do I really need to go through this thread, isolate your posts and explain to you where you're being rude and obnoxious, arrogant and full of contempt? I would do that if I honestly thought you didn't already know.

I'll let my second post in this thread demonstrate what I mean. I pointed out an irony that the Bible teaches that directly related to an atheist's desire for proof and your response was to link an absurd website and reply with sarcasm and derision. That is indicative of almost *all* your posts in this thread. You only became more civil *after* I posted my thoughts. I challenge anyone reading this to go back and see for themselves (and beware any of Adam's posts that have an edit date after my post objecting to his).

My point was simple and correct. Treating another person's beliefs with open contempt and ridicule is rude and obnoxious. So too is hi-jacking Steph's thread for the sake of it. To top it all off, you haven't the decency to apologize for it; only to allegedly feel sad that someone was objecting to what you were doing. It's quite possible to have a discussion about another person's beliefs without treating them like a fool for those beliefs.

EDIT: Instead of this endless bickering, I'll let you have the last word in this thread, Adam. I'll not respond to whatever you want to write in response to this. I would extend the offer of a discussion with you where I can show you, by my own example, what it means to have such a discussion while still respecting the other person's beliefs. I firmly believe that if we have such a discussion, you will be the first to resort to ridicule and contempt because I think that's in your nature and can't be avoided.

I would prefer the discussion to be about the 'contradictory' elements you say are in the Bible. I would be most willing to clear up *any* questions you have about the Bible. Any other aspect of this thread would be quite a short discussion (and has quite frankly been discussed to death here), but I'm all up for it as well. I have never made this offer to any poster here and I likely wont ever again.

The irony is intended yes?

I do hope so - otherwise you're set to explode when your hypocrisy reaches uncontainable levels.

Any way - Sorry Mike - you missed the debate. Alehop, Brad and I had a very good, productive, friendly, balanced, impersonal and mature discussion of religious questions.

Its a shame you were too busy with your selective moral indignation and unsupported personal accusations.

PS - Are you really a christian, or are you just trying to make them look bad?

[cavallino 2]

oh the irony!

Perhaps I have baited people (its not the word I'd use, but lets not quibble). I hope to be challenging.

I am certainly combatitive in my posts.

You're more than combatitive(sic). It's like, you're travelling in a train. You stand up in the compartment, shout out your opinions on 10 different subjects, using the most provocative generalisations, false sweeping statements. An old lady finally gets offended and says something. You walk up to her seat and berate her and shout at her and accuse her of being a hypocrite. What have you accomplished? You can find something you strongly disagree on with just about any person. But you have to live together, you have to travel on the same train. And as long as you are travelling on the same train without troubling each other, is there really a point trying to prove how not everyone agrees on everything. And never will.

You measure your own intelligence by the number of people you manage to p**s off. It's the assertion that people are better off after listening to you that's denigrating.

You can do your best to get along. And stand up for things you know you have to stand up for - and the same people, if you don't p**s them off with your pointless baiting will show you a hell of a lot more respect when you actually need to stand up for something. Stand up for things that make the world a better place, not just to stroke your ego. Being more intelligent than the average person doesn't mean having to prove it to everyone at every single opportunity.

I believe humans are all essentially good

Humans are inherently neither good or bad. A complex interplay of your upbringing, your genes, your education etc forms the person you are. The best you can hope for is to have a world where we minimize the external influences - poverty, inequality, hunger, lack of education breed hate, intolerance, violence etc.

I believe that the right to freedom of expression is the most important right of all.

A politician trying to bring in a law to control the internet is challenging freedom of information. The old lady on the train who says 'please don't say that' isn't.

I personally have learnt a lot!..

I wish you had..

The irony is intended yes?

Is that your punchline for everything - pointing to non existent irony?

PS - Are you really a christian, or are you just trying to make them look bad?

This is the kind of statement with which you started this thread, you're STILL baiting. Replace christian with atheist in that statement and you might get my point.

Or let me put it this way - if every christian is answerable for any paedophile or murderer who calls himself christian, that implies as an atheist I have to be answerable for people like you - no bloody way. Sure, there is no common 'atheist' affiliation. But some crazy guy calling himself christian doesn't automatically affiliate him with hundreds of millions of christians around the world.

[yurp 0]

Hey! its Cav! ...

Throughout the entire debate I've been saying that one man's actions are his own responsibility and that an individual does not represent a religion whether they do good or bad. Then you post this...

some crazy guy calling himself christian doesn't automatically affiliate him with hundreds of millions of christians around the world.

...like I'd disagree.

Here's the crux of it...

Mike got the response he got because he was never interested in that debate. He looked for things to be offended by and then he faked his moral outrage, indulged in ad hominem arguments and repeatedly made unsupportable accusations.

Newsflash - It had nothing to do with my respect or lack of it for religion or its followers. (I had a very mature and respectful discussion with Alehop and Brad) Mike's posts are a result of his own little grudge which he's been holding for quite some time in various threads. Its nothing new.

You are now using this thread to air your own little grievance over my comment on your Hahahaha thread failure. You know it as well as I do. I have to admit its endearing to be the object of such ardent attentions, but I recommend you find a girl your own age - perhaps she'll help you with some of that teenage angst better than I can. Perhaps you just need a "release".

It must be awful to hold such petty little vendettas on an internet forum.

An internet forum! :lol:

Bless. You funny little boy.

[cavallino 2]

...like I'd disagree.

Really?

Quoting you from this thread:

I also take you as a moderate and intelligent person, so although you may not agree with the attacks being made on the science curriculum in the US, your chosen religion is facilitating those attacks.

So just being christian automatically makes them answerable to you for changes in the science curriculum in a different country? And then when they reply you'll pick another example from some other corner of the world and ad infinitum. See my train analogy above. You came into this thread thinking 'hmm let me post some provocative statements, there are sure to be some christians here who will respond, and then I shall proceed to challenge them vigorously and educate them by berating them'. There is a nauseating undeserved intellectual arrogance here that negates whatever point you are trying to make.

[yurp 0]

:clap3:This is just astounding.

A quick question for you Cav:

How is this...

I also take you as a moderate and intelligent person, so although you may not agree with the attacks being made on the science curriculum in the US, your chosen religion is facilitating those attacks.

...the same as this...

just being christian automatically makes them answerable to you for changes in the science curriculum in a different country

?

How exactly have those two statements come to mean the same thing in your head?

At no point did I say Kate should be answerable for the acts of US christian individuals, just that her religion facilitates those people's actions.

Listen - I'll make you a deal Cav - if you can read and then think for more than 2 seconds before posting, I won't treat you like a 5 year old. Okay kiddo?

[pabloh20 1]

Hey! its Cav! ...

Throughout the entire debate I've been saying that one man's actions are his own responsibility and that an individual does not represent a religion whether they do good or bad. Then you post this...

...like I'd disagree.

Here's the crux of it...

Mike got the response he got because he was never interested in that debate. He looked for things to be offended by and then he faked his moral outrage, indulged in ad hominem arguments and repeatedly made unsupportable accusations.

Newsflash - It had nothing to do with my respect or lack of it for religion or its followers. (I had a very mature and respectful discussion with Alehop and Brad) Mike's posts are a result of his own little grudge which he's been holding for quite some time in various threads. Its nothing new.

You are now using this thread to air your own little grievance over my comment on your Hahahaha thread failure. You know it as well as I do. I have to admit its endearing to be the object of such ardent attentions, but I recommend you find a girl your own age - perhaps she'll help you with some of that teenage angst better than I can. Perhaps you just need a "release".

It must be awful to hold such petty little vendettas on an internet forum.

An internet forum! :lol:

Bless. You funny little boy.

Adam, I didn't want to really get involved in this, but I have to be honest, your posts are not of the normal ilk that I have come to expect, judging from my own previous discussions with you and your normal posts on here. Obviously, we all have our disagreements with other users from time to time, but this doesn't really seem like you. Maybe religion is a sensitive subject with you, I have no idea, but it does seem to have clouded your judgement a tad, in my opinion.

I just want to highlight a couple of things you have said. I am not witch hunting, but I just want to point out, possibly, why several people have made certain comments about your posts in this thread.

Alehop - I am a rare bread of atheist...

I went to a C of E school. We had bible readings every day. I have personally read the king james bible cover to cover. My parents (unlike most religious people) left it to me to research and decide whether I should be christened or not.

I have a better understanding of the whole bible and christian history (as opposed to the cherry-picked version that we hear most of the time) than many christians.

I find that statement misguided at best. I have read the Bible cover to cover a few times, slightly different versions and have even been a practising Christian for a time, but I would never make such a bold statement. I found it a tad arrogant and naive, if I am being honest.

There's just too much wrong with your post to even bother with.

I've had many fascinating debates with intelligent theists in my time - this isn't one of them.

You just keep on believing what you want if it makes you happy.

Cheerio.

This is just one I picked, seems you said you had a mature and interesting discussion with Alehop.

I think you'll agree, in restrospect, this is a touch dismissive. From the posts I have read on here, Aley has a great understanding of life, religion and is obviously very comfortable in his own skin and where he is sailing his ship, as Mike would say. I know you went on to have a good discussion with Aley and I am glad you did, but you can see why people are questioning your posts in here.

With regards to Mike, I am afraid you are completely incorrect as to his motives for posting. When I started on this forum, I had quite a few arguments with Mike and I am sorry for some of the posts I made towards him at the time. However, not once has Mike ever held a grudge, looked in my posts to find something to argue about, or to fake moral outrage about. It's just not Mike and I don't know him anywhere near as well as some other people on here.

I don't think I have ever had a crossed word with you, Adam. If we have, you obviously weren't that good, as I don't remember it So, I don't want to get into an argument with you over this, however, I hope you can accept my view as an 'impartial bystander' that there are no vendettas or ulterior motives in people's response to your posts.

[yurp 0]

Adam, I didn't want to really get involved in this, but I have to be honest, your posts are not of the normal ilk that I have come to expect, judging from my own previous discussions with you and your normal posts on here. Obviously, we all have our disagreements with other users from time to time, but this doesn't really seem like you. Maybe religion is a sensitive subject with you, I have no idea, but it does seem to have clouded your judgement a tad, in my opinion.

I just want to highlight a couple of things you have said. I am not witch hunting, but I just want to point out, possibly, why several people have made certain comments about your posts in this thread.

Fair enough. I have already accepted my failings in this thread in about 5 seperate posts, I'm not sure why people still seem to think I haven't. I agree - my judgement has not been at its best. I make no excuses for that.

However I will not excuse other people's actions either. Take a look at Mike's posts and tell me that you find nothing wrong with them.

I have no major beef with religion at all. I do have major issues with hypocrisy though. There has been a lot of hypocrisy throughout this thread and it just so happens that religion, like politics is a popular stage on which hypocrites perform.

I find that statement misguided at best. I have read the Bible cover to cover a few times, slightly different versions and have even been a practising Christian for a time, but I would never make such a bold statement. I found it a tad arrogant and naive, if I am being honest.

Be careful to read what I actually wrote Pabloh - I do know more about the whole bible and christian history than many christians. So do you.

I didn't say I knew more than all chritians.

I didn't say I knew more than most christians.

I didn't say I knew everything.

All I said was I know more (about the whole bible and religious history) than many christians.

Its not much of a claim to make at all.

This is just one I picked, seems you said you had a mature and interesting discussion with Alehop.

I think you'll agree, in restrospect, this is a touch dismissive. From the posts I have read on here, Aley has a great understanding of life, religion and is obviously very comfortable in his own skin and where he is sailing his ship, as Mike would say. I know you went on to have a good discussion with Aley and I am glad you did, but you can see why people are questioning your posts in here.

I do agree that that post was dismissive and when Alehop upped his game and made solid posts after that, I made every effort to read everything he wrote and make the same effort in my own posts. We ended up with a great discussion lasting about a dozen posts each.

With regards to Mike, I am afraid you are completely incorrect as to his motives for posting. When I started on this forum, I had quite a few arguments with Mike and I am sorry for some of the posts I made towards him at the time. However, not once has Mike ever held a grudge, looked in my posts to find something to argue about, or to fake moral outrage about. It's just not Mike and I don't know him anywhere near as well as some other people on here.

Why then did Mike not take offense at any of the other people's jokes about religion? Why does he not get morally offended by his own offensive and personal insults? Why does he have a rule for me and a different one for himself?

I have accepted my shortcomings time and time again in this thread. I have seen not even the slightest hint of regret from Mike for his abusive posts. Quite the opposite. When I offered my apologies he launched yet more abuse in my direction.

That is hypocrisy.

I don't think I have ever had a crossed word with you, Adam. If we have, you obviously weren't that good, as I don't remember it So, I don't want to get into an argument with you over this, however, I hope you can accept my view as an 'impartial bystander' that there are no vendettas or ulterior motives in people's response to your posts.

Nope - you actually read people's posts before making a kneejerk reaction. We are unlikely to argue.

[pabloh20 1]

Fair enough. I have already accepted my failings in this thread and I agree - my judgement has not been at its best. I've said so in several posts.

I will not excuse other people's actions though. Look at Mike's posts and tell me if you think he has been honest, tollerant, fair or principled.

I'm not sure what you find arrogant about saying I know more about "the whole bible and christian history" than many christians - I do. I have met many many christians who know very little abut their own religious text and the history of their religion. I did not want Alehop to dismiss my views with the old 'atheists don't know anything about the bible' argument. (Read the post that my post was answering.) I didn't say I know everything. I didn't say I know more than all christians. What I said was the truth. No arrogance.

I do agree that that post was dismissive and when Alehop upped his game and made solid posts later, I made every effort to read everything he wrote and make the same effort in my pwn posts.

Why then did Mike laugh at Dribs joke? I ignored Mike's vitriol up until then, but at that point I just realised what an utter hypocrite he was being. Thus the fake moral outrage charge. He finds no problem in calling someone names, telling them what they should or shouldn't be allowed to write, misrepresenting what they have said and taking offense when it suits him. That, my friend is hypocrisy. One rule for himself another for someone he disagrees with. I'm fed up apologising to a person who sees no need to apologise themselves after the kind of behaviour he has exhibited.

Nope - you actually read people's posts before making a kneejerk reaction. We are unlikely to argue.

EDIT - look - I've accepted my own failings in about 5 posts in this thread, so I'm not sure why people still seem to think I haven't. What I don't like is the fact that Mike still hasn't made the slightest effort to be anything but argumentitive and wishes to place the blame for his hatred directly on me. That is unfair and dishonest.

Adam, I know you have accepted your own failings and bollock me, that's an awful lot for any one person to accept!! Seriously, though, credit to you for holding your hand up, many people don't.

However, I was merely expressing an opinion that I don't think Mike, or Cav, for that matter, were making their posts due to any vendettas or grudges carried over from other times/threads. However, it's just my opinion watching from the sidelines rather than being an active contributor to this thread and having a vested interest.

It was just meant as a bit of 'friendly' observance, although admittedly it didn't quite come across as that, sorry. However, that was the intention.

[Rainmaster 7]

Personally, I thought a minority of Adam's posts were liable to be offensive to religious people and seemed condescending, but the majority of them were interesting and informative. I thought that different people's reactions to them were telling, in that respect, Kate's response was an example of a good one (iirc). What's important to do in such a sensitive debate (and much more difficult to do than if arguing about F1) is perhaps to look past the tone of the poster and only consider the arguments, which was something that Ale managed to do (iirc) and ended up having something like a constructive debate. If you fail to do that, then there really is no chance of achieving anything. Mike's response came across as much more personal to Adam ("This is a prime example of why I dislike people such as you"), now I don't know Mike so I don't know whether that's because of his character, or because of past arguments with Adam. I suspect it's probably a combination of the two (which would be entirely natural). Anyway, at the risk of earning the wrath of both of you, you two both need to get over yourselves and bury the hatchet

[Quiet One 15]

Personally, I thought a minority of Adam's posts were liable to be offensive to religious people and seemed condescending, but the majority of them were interesting and informative. I thought that different people's reactions to them were telling, in that respect, Kate's response was an example of a good one (iirc). What's important to do in such a sensitive debate (and much more difficult to do than if arguing about F1) is perhaps to look past the tone of the poster and only consider the arguments, which was something that Ale managed to do (iirc) and ended up having something like a constructive debate. If you fail to do that, then there really is no chance of achieving anything. Mike's response came across as much more personal to Adam ("This is a prime example of why I dislike people such as you"), now I don't know Mike so I don't know whether that's because of his character, or because of past arguments with Adam. I suspect it's probably a combination of the two (which would be entirely natural). Anyway, at the risk of earning the wrath of both of you, you two both need to get over yourselves and bury the hatchet

Indeed. We've been agreeing too much. TP, you are in a roll. Wait...

[yurp 0]

Adam, I know you have accepted your own failings and bollock me, that's an awful lot for any one person to accept!! Seriously, though, credit to you for holding your hand up, many people don't.

However, I was merely expressing an opinion that I don't think Mike, or Cav, for that matter, were making their posts due to any vendettas or grudges carried over from other times/threads. However, it's just my opinion watching from the sidelines rather than being an active contributor to this thread and having a vested interest.

It was just meant as a bit of 'friendly' observance, although admittedly it didn't quite come across as that, sorry. However, that was the intention.

Fair comment. I can't help think Mike's holding a grudge though. He's been fairly objectionable over 4 or so different threads now and I can't help thinking there's a pattern emerging. As for me - I'm always objectionable.

Sorry - I edited the above post just now before I realised you were replying. I thought I should explain a few points better.

As for Cav - check Maure's Massa thread. I caught the wrong fish there. Its okay though, Cav's ire is harmless enough - he's a little sweetie really.

Personally, I thought a minority of Adam's posts were liable to be offensive to religious people and seemed condescending, but the majority of them were interesting and informative. I thought that different people's reactions to them were telling, in that respect, Kate's response was an example of a good one (iirc). What's important to do in such a sensitive debate (and much more difficult to do than if arguing about F1) is perhaps to look past the tone of the poster and only consider the arguments, which was something that Ale managed to do (iirc) and ended up having something like a constructive debate. If you fail to do that, then there really is no chance of achieving anything. Mike's response came across as much more personal to Adam ("This is a prime example of why I dislike people such as you"), now I don't know Mike so I don't know whether that's because of his character, or because of past arguments with Adam. I suspect it's probably a combination of the two (which would be entirely natural). Anyway, at the risk of earning the wrath of both of you, you two both need to get over yourselves and bury the hatchet

I agree with everything.

And have honestly been willing (and trying) to inter the small axe for several pages now.

Indeed. We've been agreeing too much. TP, you are in a roll. Wait...

[Rainmaster 7]

Indeed. We've been agreeing too much. TP, you are in a roll. Wait...

Must admit I didn't see that one coming, you never cease to amaze Andres!

[cavallino 2]

As for Cav - check Maure's Massa thread. I caught the wrong fish there. Its okay though, Cav's ire is harmless enough - he's a little sweetie really.

No sir, your posts are crap because they are crap, and you are a baiter, there is no hidden grudge or vendetta here. I hardly look at usernames when I read posts and I don't hold grudges - I might remember a disagreement but usually forget who it was with. You're giving yourself too much credit if you think you have been criticized only because of grudges.

[Autumnpuma 0]

I showed my wife this thread last night. I respect her opinions and quite frankly I wanted her opinions on this. Was I reading Adams posts wrong? Was I seeing contempt when there wasn't any? All she said was, and I quote, "Stop it, you're acting like an a##".

I don't deserve that woman.

Anyway, she thought I shouldn't have responded to anything. If Adam's posts were offensive or lacked respect, it would be obvious to people reading and it wasn't my place to point it out. I think that's right.

I do think I need to clear some things up, however:

1) I have no vendetta against Adam (I even said in this thread that he made some of this forum's finest posts on this subject, did I not?).

2) My only participation in this debate has been to post *one* time. Adam's sarcastic response to my contribution kicked all of this off and after that I did indeed direct my posts at him because of that sarcastic response. Had he responded in a different way, this probably would have ended differently.

3) Based on Adam's writings in this thread alone, I judge that I dislike him...not because he's an atheist, but because he's acting in ways that I dislike (Cav nailed it, I think). There's no rule or Christian law that says I need to *like* everyone and I prefer to be honest and tell a person when I dislike him/her. You may not like me in return, but you always know where you stand with me.

I have had many disagreements with forum members in the past, but I've also given those people huge compliments and respect. For instance, Cav and I have had our moments, but I *always* point out the posts of his that I think are brilliant.

But all of this is probably still being an 'a##'. Ah well.....ego makes everyone act in interesting ways.

[Quiet One 15]

Yeah, sometimes we step on some other person's toes without noticing and things get worse from there (specially over the net)

For example, lately I've been feeling that TP (as much as I respect him) has been specially grating.

Sorry, I just can't stop now

[yurp 0]

I showed my wife this thread last night. I respect her opinions and quite frankly I wanted her opinions on this. Was I reading Adams posts wrong? Was I seeing contempt when there wasn't any? All she said was, and I quote, "Stop it, you're acting like an a##".

I don't deserve that woman.

Anyway, she thought I shouldn't have responded to anything. If Adam's posts were offensive or lacked respect, it would be obvious to people reading and it wasn't my place to point it out. I think that's right.

I do think I need to clear some things up, however:

1) I have no vendetta against Adam (I even said in this thread that he made some of this forum's finest posts on this subject, did I not?).

2) My only participation in this debate has been to post *one* time. Adam's sarcastic response to my contribution kicked all of this off and after that I did indeed direct my posts at him because of that sarcastic response. Had he responded in a different way, this probably would have ended differently.

3) Based on Adam's writings in this thread alone, I judge that I dislike him...not because he's an atheist, but because he's acting in ways that I dislike (Cav nailed it, I think). There's no rule or Christian law that says I need to *like* everyone and I prefer to be honest and tell a person when I dislike him/her. You may not like me in return, but you always know where you stand with me.

I have had many disagreements with forum members in the past, but I've also given those people huge compliments and respect. For instance, Cav and I have had our moments, but I *always* point out the posts of his that I think are brilliant.

But all of this is probably still being an 'a##'. Ah well.....ego makes everyone act in interesting ways.

Hi Mike - this is a welcome post - it can't have been easy to write. Thank you for making the effort.

Wives are wonderful things aren't they!

I am glad I was incorrect about your reaction being born out of a grudge. If you say it isn't then I'll take your word for it.

I have made various comments in this thread that you found offensive. I alone wrote those posts and am fully responsible for their content and the offense they caused you. I was responding to your posts, but you are not responsible in any way for the tone or content of my responses - that is entirely my fault. I'm sorry for the offense I caused you.

[Medilloni 6]

............Instead of admitting you have 'acted like an a##' and then going on to list myself as an excuse for that behaviour, I would like to see you accept 100% responsibility for your own actions. Read on...

Accepting our failings and accepting responsibility for them is the path to self improvement.

If I were to say "I wrote some crappy stuff, but only because of what you wrote", it would make me feel justified, but it wouldn't be building the bridges that we need to build.

If I just write "I wrote some crappy stuff and I shouldn't have", I feel begrudgingly but gradually better about myself.

I know it isn't easy and you're right - ego makes it hard.

In the interests of peace I will go first...

I have made various comments in this thread that you found offensive. I alone wrote those posts and am fully responsible for their content and the offense they caused you. I was responding to your posts, but you are not responsible in any way for the tone or content of my responses - that is entirely my fault. I'm sorry for the offense I caused you.

If you could bring yourself to make the same or a similar statement(no ifs, no buts, no excuses, no justifications) I would consider the hatchet well buried. If not, I will understand and I won't hold it against you.

Either way - we can move on.

Adam, if I was Mike, the only place I would bury a hatchet is in your disturbed frickin head.

I've highlighted the bits that prompted this post, just a couple of the little gems that highlight your preaching (irony?) 'style', a style that's demeaning, sycophantic, self-righteous verbal diarrhoea. It's an education to see the lengths you're going to in order to look good, to be right no matter what. If you want to be so squeaky clean, try a Persil pessary.

I hope you take this post as it is intended; a comment on your attitude (you'd think it was an attack, that's OK) from someone sick of you shoving your passion for being Mr Right down people's necks.

You remember Mike used the word 'grace'? That was all you needed to know to bury the hatchet, you look but you don't see.

Please, fcuk off down your own path of self improvement.

[yurp 0]

Hi meds - I just reread my post and understand what you're getting at. Thanks for pointing it out.

It wasn't meant as a comment on Mike in particular, but on how we generally improve ourselves as human beings by accepting responsibility.

But you're right - it came across as more preaching. I've got to stop that.

Anyway - I think it better if I just apologise - so I've removed the other bits.

Thank you.

[Medilloni 6]

Hi meds - I just reread my post and understand what you're getting at. Thanks for pointing it out.

It wasn't meant as a comment on Mike in particular, but on how we generally improve ourselves as human beings by accepting responsibility.

But you're right - it came across as more preaching. I've got to stop that.

Anyway - I think it better if I just apologise - so I've removed the other bits.

Thank you.

That's the beauty of being Bipolar Adam, I can get away with murder and don't give a sh1t, fifty percent of the time.

However, I would appreciate it if you didn't make this last post so damned reasonable, I might have to start liking you again

[pabloh20 1]

That's the beauty of being Bipolar Adam, I can get away with murder and don't give a sh1t, fifty percent of the time.

However, I would appreciate it if you didn't make this last post so damned reasonable, I might have to start liking you again

Well, bollock me. I thought you said you were bisexual. It'sa good job I didn't start telling everyone

[yurp 0]

That's the beauty of being Bipolar Adam, I can get away with murder and don't give a sh1t, fifty percent of the time.

However, I would appreciate it if you didn't make this last post so damned reasonable, I might have to start liking you again

Don't worry - I'll p**s you off again soon enough

[Medilloni 6]

Well, bollock me. I thought you said you were bisexual. It's a good job I didn't start telling everyone

Yes Paul, when I found out I am bipolar, it was a fcuking site less depressing then the thought of fancying blokes and missing valuable bedtime with all those some wonderful women over the years Anyway, stop trying to hit on me, Andres will be jealous!