by Farkel 68 Replies latest jw friends
Farkal?
Heh, heh.
: As to judging you I'll say this. I have read one productive thread you have started concerning Judge Rutherford's potential mistress. The rest have been about your music, neutral or outright sarcastic.
You mean these are all about music, neutral or outright sarcastict? Read them and tell me you agree with what I quoted from you above here.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/32/76183/1.ashx
Farkel
I was referring to what you've posted since I've been reading JWD, but your point seems to be that since you've contributed more than many you can treat them like snot if you have the mind to?
Like perhaps a D.O. treats the Rank & File?
I disagree and I think that it diminishes past goodness to a degree - but for you to attack a gal, over grammar, coming here for help - cannot be justified simply because you've posted productive threads in the past. Poor manners and behavior is still bad, whether it's pointed out by someone with 10,000 posts, 3,000 posts or 300 post.
Have a good day Farkel,
~UnConfused/ConfusedJW
"The thing of it is".....What the hell does that mean????
Unconfused,
: I disagree and I think that it diminishes past goodness to a degree - but for you to attack a gal, over grammar, coming here for help - cannot be justified simply because you've posted productive threads in the past. Poor manners and behavior is still bad, whether it's pointed out by someone with 10,000 posts, 3,000 posts or 300 post.
That is typical Watchtower thinking and reminds me of a true story told by Ray Franz in his book "In Search of Christian Freedom." A man in his 90's had a problem with WT doctrine and said so. He was DFd after SEVENTY YEARS of faithful service. Is that your point with me?
Your argument is this: :"you did something I don't like, so everything you did before that and after that is "diminished" or somehow not as important because of that." That is an argument from idiocy. What I did in the past stands on its own and will stand on its own merit regardless of what I do now or in the future.
By the way, I contacted that "gal" after that event and apologized to her and she wrote me back and was happy for my apology and said it was not a problem. You are a relative newbie on this board but you certainly think you can use your yapper to make a point and a personal attack when you haven't had enough time to get to know the folks here. Or you haven't asked for all the evidence.
You are still (apparently) a judgmental dub-twit at heart, my friend. Why did you change your screen name, by the way?
Would you like me to search the body of all your posts and post the results here, or would I just maybe, possibly, find a litany of mindless drivel and judgmental blather? Would it somehow "diminish" what you said about me if I did that, then? Or are you so pure that you are above scrutiny yourself?
Farkel
How about "I aksed him a question instead of ask" also using the phrase ain't got no instead of I don't have any
I hate to be such a pedant, BUT:
: How about "I aksed him a question instead of ask"
It's "axed", you ninny! If one must talk ghetto, one must learn "proper' ghetto!
Farkel
Word, Farkel.
Farkel,
: I disagree and I think that it diminishes past goodness to a degree - but for you to attack a gal, over grammar, coming here for help - cannot be justified simply because you've posted productive threads in the past. Poor manners and behavior is still bad, whether it's pointed out by someone with 10,000 posts, 3,000 posts or 300 post.
That is typical Watchtower thinking and reminds me of a true story told by Ray Franz in his book "In Search of Christian Freedom." A man in his 90's had a problem with WT doctrine and said so. He was DFd after SEVENTY YEARS of faithful service. Is that your point with me?
Yes
Your argument is this: :"you did something I don't like, so everything you did before that and after that is "diminished" or somehow not as important because of that." That is an argument from idiocy. What I did in the past stands on its own and will stand on its own merit regardless of what I do now or in the future.
Incorrect. My point was "You did something I didn't like that is anti-productive to the purpose of this forum ( the way you treated that girl over something as trivial as grammar ) and now you have started a thread on speech and grammar." You then countered with "How dare you - you only have 200 posts and I'm Farkal"
By the way, I contacted that "gal" after that event and apologized to her and she wrote me back and was happy for my apology and said it was not a problem. You are a relative newbie on this board but you certainly think you can use your yapper to make a point and a personal attack when you haven't had enough time to get to know the folks here. Or you haven't asked for all the evidence.
If you say so. You derided her publicly, defended what you did publicly, but then contacted her privately and apologized - after publicly making it very clear you did nothing wrong? Again, if you say so.
You are still (apparently) a judgmental dub-twit at heart, my friend. Why did you change your screen name, by the way?
I already explained why I changed my screen name. I try not to be a judgmental dub-twit at heart or head. Your intolerance of her made me feel intolerant toward you. Perhaps that does make me judgemental, I'll think about that more.
Would you like me to search the body of all your posts and post the results here, or would I just maybe, possibly, find a litany of mindless drivel and judgmental blather? Would it somehow "diminish" what you said about me if I did that, then? Or are you so pure that you are above scrutiny yourself?
I'm not above anyone nor am I above scrutiny. If you search my posts and find that I've attacked someone coming here to get help I would feel ashamed.
Cheers,
UnConfused/ConfusedJW
My bad.
Overdone.
Lets stay to good english not ghetto ok
