Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - falcon9

Pages: 1 2 3 ... 631
1
Offers / Re: Where did Cheap Flights go?
« on: November 15, 2012, 07:44:17 pm »Message ID: 642358
Sure hope to see this offer come back soon.... it's still available on one of the other sites that I do.  :dontknow:

That would be a good thing, unless it's glitchy on other sites as well.  Is it on the other one you use?

2
Off-Topic / Red Dawn redoux
« on: November 15, 2012, 07:21:54 pm »Message ID: 642329
"Red Dawn is a 2012 American action war film directed by Dan Bradley and written by Jeremy Passmore and Carl Ellsworth, based on the 1984 film of the same name. The film stars Chris Hemsworth, Josh Peck, Josh Hutcherson, Adrianne Palicki, Isabel Lucas, and Jeffrey Dean Morgan. The film centers on a group of young people who defend their hometown from a North Korean invasion.
 
The remake was announced in May 2008 and went into production in September 2009. The film was originally scheduled to be released on November 24, 2010, but was shelved due to maker Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer's (MGM) financial troubles. The invading army was changed from Chinese to North Korean in post-production. FilmDistrict picked up the U.S. distribution rights in September 2011 and set a November 21, 2012 release date."

I'd seen the 1984 version where the Soviets and Cubans were the invading forces and I'm looking forward to the variations in this remake.

3
Off-Topic / Re: daily Bible inverse
« on: November 15, 2012, 07:01:22 pm »Message ID: 642318
Quote
"I CAN DO ALL THINGS THROUGH CHRIST WHICH GIVES ME STRENGTH"

"All things" would include breathing vacuum in space, sans a suit or ship - can do?

4
Off-Topic / Re: daily fundie "calling-out" campaign
« on: November 15, 2012, 06:45:31 pm »Message ID: 642310
The proof is there FC...just backtrack.....please make lots of people happy here.FINALLY!!!!!

The specious religiously-biased opinions of a self-declared fundie do not constitute evidentiary proof.

5
Off-Topic / Re: non-biblical calling-out post
« on: November 15, 2012, 03:37:24 pm »Message ID: 642221
Fusion Cash...it has been over a week now Falcon9s posts are hidden from me...he constantly has commented on mine.

False.  I have occasionally, (not "constantly"), replied to the content of posts made by you, not to you by 'nym, (except where you've threatened or, posted egregious lies).

I have ignored it completely.He puts up Fundie threat...

That's because you are a self-proclaimed jw fundie who has posted threats.  Logic is not your friend.

...im sorry but this guy has got to go...it isnt fair i get badgered in the dark.Doesnt discernment tell you this guy is a troublemaker?He trys to play by the rules but uses them to his advantage when the trouble starts with him.

Requesting that FC moderators ban someone for Not breaking FC's rules or policies is irrational.  Conversely, the one requesting such has violated FC's policies by posting more than one "calling-out" thread which makes such a censorous demand hypocritical.

Whats it gonna take?The least you can do is hide my posts from his.I dont feel like being threatned by him ...

The assertion that I've "threatned" the member who has just issued a threat against me, (to "get rid" of me), is specious.  No such "threats" have been posted by me and therefore, the accuser lies outright.
 
Get rid of him.

Get bent.

6
Off-Topic / Re: daily Bible inverse
« on: November 15, 2012, 03:20:34 pm »Message ID: 642211
Quote
"Now faith is the substance ..."

No, "faith" has no "substance" since it is a belief without substantive evidence.

7
Off-Topic / Re: fundie threats
« on: November 15, 2012, 03:19:10 pm »Message ID: 642210
i CANT READ YOUR POSTS BUT I AM GOING TO DO MY DAMNEST TO GET RID OF YOU

That is a direct threat and it's been reported as such, (since FC does not ban for not violating their policies or rules).  Conversely, you have previously violated FC posting policies on at least three previous occasions and have been temporarily banned, (by way of posting at least two "calling-out" threads), only to return and do it again and again.  Therefore, threatening another FC member with an unspecified campaign to "get rid of" them/me is specious.


8
Off-Topic / Re: what does it take moderators?
« on: November 15, 2012, 03:11:42 pm »Message ID: 642201
The guy is a creep and a troublemaker...i havent spoken to him in over a week now and i suggest you put my posts hidden to him as well or get rid of him!!!

'Flaming' another member of FC, (with the "creep and a troublemaker" insults), and then requesting that FC "get rid of" the one you're insulting is extremely hypocritical, (as well as ignorant).

Isnt it obvious to you guys yet???
If this isnt trolling what is?I dont feel like getting badgered in the dark here.PLEASE GET RID OF HIM

Any member of FC who chooses to reply to a 'publically-posted' post has the option to do so.  Replying to posts isn't "trolling", (which has a different definition than 'unliked content').  'Demanding' that FC "get rid" of a member who is not violating FC policies or rules is a blatant demand for censorship.

9
Debate & Discuss / Re: How To Handle Christian Persecution of non-xtians On FusionCash
« on: November 15, 2012, 02:49:54 pm »Message ID: 642188
Quote
As for call out threads, I did NOT make any one of those threads, and have stated several times that I agree that they should NOT be made like that.  Since there have been so many, that alone should alert others that the ones making them do indeed feel stomped on and very frustrated - that in itself is a red flag when one person is being called out because others are upset at the treatment, yet the treatment is allowed to continue.  Therein lies the frustration of the many.

Frustration over being refuted/not being able to post religious evangelism unopposed is no excuse for violating FC posting policies or rules however.

Quote
One issue I have, is for example, a prayer thread.  Someone asks for prayer.  Not all believe in prayer.  That's fine.  Instead of personally insulting the person ... but not being condemning to the poster asking for support.

As at least four other members of FC have stated; the dissenting viewpoints relate to the supersitious belief in such magical intercessory rituals themselves and not with "condemning the poster asking" for them.  Such a mischaracterization constitutes a false assertion.

Quote
I may not agree with someone's choice of dis-believing, but it is their choice and it's not for me to be rude to one because they dis-believe differently than I believe. 

Yet, there are numerous archived posts which contradict such an assertion about not being "rude" to those with dissenting viewpoints, (and as such, this evidence negates those counter-claims and thus, serve to support contentions of ongoing attempts to censor/restrict dissenting points of view by mischaracterizing them as "rude" and so forth).

Quote
Repetitive comebacks ...

Those reiterations result when you keep repeating the same things after they had been refuted.

10
Off-Topic / Re: fundie threats
« on: November 15, 2012, 02:47:12 pm »Message ID: 642187
Though such a 'threat' is probably metaphorical, it remains indicative of the blatant religious evangelism being 'forced' upon members of a non-religious independent contractor business site's forums.

Sometimes when you speak with Falconer2 you need to bring some extra dynamite.....LOL!!Every once in awhile i run outta blasting caps.

11
Off-Topic / Re: daily non-biblical inverse
« on: November 15, 2012, 02:39:01 pm »Message ID: 642181
Quote
I am not "flooding" this forum with threads;

That's a bit disingenuous since there is a great deal of archived evidence that you are "flooding" the forum threads with evangelical religious posts.

Quote
there are a great many posters who are making threads - it all adds up.  There are many who make threads, apparently not understanding that they can include their posts within a same thread.

That's true however, you omitted the part where you've added posts to such threads, thus contributing to the "flooding" of evangelical religious posts to the forums.

Quote
Some are frustrated because of personal insults; then get scolded for making a call out thread.  Though I don't agree with call out threads, I can still feel their frustration.

Once again, that is a false characterization since dissenting viewpoints have focussed upon opposing the specious religious contentions made rather than primarily upon those making them.  Further, some of those "calling-out" threads have been supported by you through posting in agreement and 'egging them on'.


Quote
Another thing, are you really saying that there is constant cramming down the throats of religion in here?  Maybe some do, but I don't think that cramming is the right word - they just want to share things and talk about it with others.

What religious evangelists may 'call' "just wanting to share" remains religious evangelism, rephrased.  

Quote
What makes it start looking mean is the constant opposition, though allowed, that extends the threads into quarreling.  I made a recent thread for November Blessings - people who like it or don't like it will and will not comment.  You can ignore it since it seems to bother you.  It does NOT mean I am cramming my religion - I'm not inviting anyone personally to the Lord - I am sharing my thoughts and views, and in that one thread, my thanks and blessings in my life.

Once again, there's no provision on FC for unopposed "sharing" of religious evangelism.  If such evangelism is permitted by FC, so too are opposing viewpoints.
 
Quote
I am not the one following most every single religious thread and I'm not seeing the cramming you are speaking of - they are sharing their verses and views.

It may very well be that religious blind faith also blinds those holding it to reason since the concept of 'no provision for unopposed religious evangelism/proselytization exists on FC, (which therefore allows for dissenting viewpoints, whether characterized as "following most every single religious thread" or not).


Quote
Other posters are tired of "atheistic" views being cra ...

Viewpoints expressed in oppositional response to initially-posted religious opinions do not constitute "atheistic views" being forced upon anyone, (because, once again, there is no provision for unopposed religious evangelism/proselytization on FC).

Quote
Of course, those who dis-believe, will deny this and with many they are absolutely right - they are not cramming but sharing their thoughts and views.  There are a couple who do indeed oppose and make it extremely obvious, to the point of making people angry.

Opposing is not "cramming".  Your false characterizations are religiously-biased, false and tedious.

Quote
...won't sit back and just let you roll over me with mis-guided assumptions and accusations laid at my door that are not correct.

Yet, you'll apparently continue to post "misguided assumptions and accusations" about other FC members rather than argue points of contention which you and other religious adherents raise, (and mischaracterize dissenting oppositional posts in a manner constituting outright lies).

12
Off-Topic / Re: daily non-biblical non-verse
« on: November 15, 2012, 02:18:50 pm »Message ID: 642173
Quote
i just wanted to enforce truth.

Not only can "truth" not be "enforced" but, there is no valid evidence to support contentions that any religious belief is the "truth", (the belief itself does not constitute valid evidence due to being based upon the non-evidence of religious faith because that's circular non-reasoning and therefore, irrational).  Further, there is no extant evidence that "truth" is irrational.

13
Debate & Discuss / Re: How To Handle Christian Persecution of non-xtians On FusionCash
« on: November 15, 2012, 02:00:17 pm »Message ID: 642165
Quote
As for call out threads, I did NOT make any one of those threads, and have stated several times that I agree that they should NOT be made like that.  Since there have been so many, that alone should alert others that the ones making them do indeed feel stomped on and very frustrated - that in itself is a red flag when one person is being called out because others are upset at the treatment, yet the treatment is allowed to continue.  Therein lies the frustration of the many.

Frustration over being refuted/not being able to post religious evangelism unopposed is no excuse for violating FC posting policies or rules however.

Quote
One issue I have, is for example, a prayer thread.  Someone asks for prayer.  Not all believe in prayer.  That's fine.  Instead of personally insulting the person ... but not being condemning to the poster asking for support.

As at least four other members of FC have stated; the dissenting viewpoints relate to the supersitious belief in such magical intercessory rituals themselves and not with "condemning the poster asking" for them.  Such a mischaracterization constitutes a false assertion.


Quote
I may not agree with someone's choice of dis-believing, but it is their choice and it's not for me to be rude to one because they dis-believe differently than I believe. 

Yet, there are numerous archived posts which contradict such an assertion about not being "rude" to those with dissenting viewpoints, (and as such, this evidence negates those counter-claims and thus, serve to support contentions of ongoing attempts to censor/restrict dissenting points of view by mischaracterizing them as "rude" and so forth).

14
Off-Topic / cultish spokespersons (was Re: Pray For Isreal)
« on: November 15, 2012, 01:29:56 pm »Message ID: 642146
Gods people are a worldwide brotherhood......

That sounds like a cult of some sort.

Blacks....Jews.....Orientals....yellows.....EVERYONE righteous in Gods eyes is acceptable to him!!!

"You can safely say that you have made g-d in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people
you do."
-- Reverend Robert Cromey

15
Off-Topic / rain dances (was Re: Pray For Isreal)
« on: November 15, 2012, 01:25:29 pm »Message ID: 642144
Again it comes back to scriptures like God letting it rain on unrighteous and righteous.

"Precipitation forms when cloud droplets (or ice particles) in clouds grow and combine to become so large that their fall speed exceeds the updraft speed in the cloud, and they then fall out of the cloud. If these large water drops or ice particles do not re-evaporate as they fall farther below the cloud, they reach the ground as precipitation. Precipitation that does re-evaporate before reaching the ground is called "virga".

Can it be any clearer?

Yes, there is no substantive evidence that 'g-d' makes it rain.

Pages: 1 2 3 ... 631