Anglicans exclude the US Episcopalians over gay bishops

[Hope]

Your post is like a Little Jack Horner post when you are shouting out 'Look, I've got a plum on my thumb!' And people are muttering 'Poor boy, thinks shite is fruit'

I was just surprisd that one could even 'consider' doing anything to a non-existent entity.  After all, to do some thing to something else involves a 'something else' existing.

[Nearly Sane]

I was just surprisd that one could even 'consider' doing anything to a non-existent entity.  After all, to do some thing to something else involves a 'something else' existing.

Which is why Trent said we couldn't consider it wrong - because it was not a consideration. And there was Little Hope Horner in his corner about to chow on the plum that was shite.

[Owlswing]

Can one mistreat a non-existent entity?  If you can't consider it wrong to do so, that entity must exist!!

I think that it is a case of mistreating those who chose to follow the dictates of a non-existent entity - an entity that demands utter loyalty or utter destruction.

[Hope]

Which is why Trent said we couldn't consider it wrong - because it was not a consideration.

In which case why the involvement of 'wrong', NS?  If its not a consideration, there is no right or wrong associated with the concept.  You seem to have tried to be too clever for your own good.

[Nearly Sane]

In which case why the involvement of 'wrong', NS?  If its not a consideration, there is no right or wrong associated with the concept.  You seem to have tried to be too clever for your own good.

It is wrong to make the effort to consider it because it isn't a consideration. Not trying to be clever, that was you. Just understanding English as she is spoke.

[Owlswing]

In which case why the involvement of 'wrong', NS?  If its not a consideration, there is no right or wrong associated with the concept.  You seem to have tried to be too clever for your own good.

A trait that you, Hope, have demonstrated on more occasions than I can count and will, without a shadow of doubt, contiunue to do ad absurdam, ad nauseam.

[Aruntraveller]

I mentioned the "wrongness" issue because Sassy raised it.

I was, as NS has pointed out, saying that I can't consider it wrong because I consider the deity non-existent.

I don't quite know why this was even an issue for you Hope.

[Hope]

I don't quite know why this was even an issue for you Hope.

Just couldn't quite undersdtand the logic behind the comment, as so much of what you said required an object to make sense, an object that you don't even regard as an object.

[Aruntraveller]

Just couldn't quite undersdtand the logic behind the comment, as so much of what you said required an object to make sense, an object that you don't even regard as an object.

Are you trying to convince us that you are a really good English teacher or something?

You may well be - but you are not so good at being a conversationalist.

My meaning was perfectly clear - I have to ask myself why you feel it necessary to pick up on my fairly standard use of English - yet you leave the mangled wreckage of that same language that is Sassy's posting quite untouched.

It's almost like you have an agenda.

[Sebastian Toe]

It's almost like you have an agenda.

"Almost", "like" , "it's".
3 unnecessary words there? 

[Nearly Sane]

Just couldn't quite undersdtand the logic behind the comment, as so much of what you said required an object to make sense, an object that you don't even regard as an object.

So if someone said ''it is wrong to spend time talking about the Flying Spaghetti Monster because it doesn't exist' that would mean they thought it did? No, of course not, and that you are maintaining this use of language that you wouldn't in other cases, is because you thought to yourself as you read trent's post 'Oh, I can make a really clever remark here, and hug my knees with excitememt', not noticing that it was based on your own bias that lead you to a misreafing
 Now that it has been pointed out, you could graciously admit you were wrong but no, you want to keep digging, and are now committed to lying about English usage, making you look like the boy who knew his plum was shite, but has to eat it all up, going 'Yum, Yum, Yum'.

[Hope]

So if someone said ''it is wrong to spend time talking about the Flying Spaghetti Monster because it doesn't exist' that would mean they thought it did? No, of course not, and that you are maintaining this use of language that you wouldn't in other cases, is because you thought to yourself as you read trent's post 'Oh, I can make a really clever remark here, and hug my knees with excitememt', not noticing that it was based on your own bias that lead you to a misreafing

MIf I had come across the original in a school essay, say, I would have pointed out to the writer that it was clumsy English.  I will do the same here.

[Shaker]

MIf I had come across the original in a school essay, say, I would have pointed out to the writer that it was clumsy English.  I will do the same here.

Whoops.

[Hope]

It's almost like you have an agenda.

Like Seb comments in a subsequent post, there are 3 unnecessary words in this sentence, and a 4th that could be read as 'we' rather than 'you'.  Your agenda is to emphasise the fact that you regard the concept of deity as either non-existant or obsolete; mine is to refute that emphasis.

[Shaker]

Your agenda is to emphasise the fact that you regard the concept of deity as either non-existant or obsolete; mine is to refute that emphasis.

Best of luck with that.

(Of course you meant rebut rather than refute, but even there it doesn't make much sense - but we'll have to let one pass as the wrongness is piling up alarmingly already).

[Nearly Sane]

MIf I had come across the original in a school essay, say, I would have pointed out to the writer that it was clumsy English.  I will do the same here.

Except given the meaning is perfectly clear, it isn't clumsy English. Indeed it needs to be read clumsily to put the construction you put on it.

[Nearly Sane]

Like Seb comments in a subsequent post, there are 3 unnecessary words in this sentence, and a 4th that could be read as 'we' rather than 'you'.  Your agenda is to emphasise the fact that you regard the concept of deity as either non-existant or obsolete; mine is to refute that emphasis.

Good to see you admit your bias in reading that lead you to misrepresent trent's sentence. BTW you have done it again with the first sentence in the above post.

[Hope]

Good to see you admit your bias in reading that lead you to misrepresent trent's sentence. BTW you have done it again with the first sentence in the above post.

I'd be worried if people here didn't have an agenda to their argumentation, NS; it would mean that that argumentation was pointless.

[Nearly Sane]

I'd be worried if people here didn't have an agenda to their argumentation, NS; it would mean that that argumentation was pointless.

And when it affects how they interpret normal English, as it did with you in this case, it can be pointed out.

You have a habit of trying to do 'a-ha' posts which rely on taking a specific more obscure reading of a post rather than the obvious one. It does your 'argumentation' no favours.

[Aruntraveller]

MIf I had come across the original in a school essay, say, I would have pointed out to the writer that it was clumsy English.  I will do the same here.

So why do you not do it with Sass's numerous clumsy posts.

That would be nothing to do with not wishing to discredit other Christians would it?

[Leonard James]

So why do you not do it with Sass's numerous clumsy posts.

That would be nothing to do with not wishing to discredit other Christians would it?

Of course it is! Birds of a feather flock together ... and there is honour even among thieves.

[Leonard James]

So why do you not do it with Sass's numerous clumsy posts.

That would be nothing to do with not wishing to discredit other Christians would it?

It would take up more time than it's worth to correct Sassenglish.

[Sassy]

No? Then it should be if your "God" is a god of love.

If you got it, then you would understand... Christians DON'T wrong others because they love their neighbour.

I think it is amusing you say you were once a Christian yet don't understand the basic and most important teaching of Christianity...

Indeed! Actions which damage the environment are also wrong, and should be restricted to the absolutely necessary.

Again, you lack in the Christian teachings of truth.

[floo]

If you got it, then you would understand... Christians DON'T wrong others because they love their neighbour.

I think it is amusing you say you were once a Christian yet don't understand the basic and most important teaching of Christianity...


Again, you lack in the Christian teachings of truth.

Sass you are so hypocritical, most of your posts are not only total garbage, they are hardly full of loving kindness either!

[Leonard James]

If you got it, then you would understand... Christians DON'T wrong others because they love their neighbour.

I think it is amusing you say you were once a Christian yet don't understand the basic and most important teaching of Christianity...


Again, you lack in the Christian teachings of truth.

I should have learned by now that posting to you is a complete waste of time, Sass! But there's no fool like and old fool.