Split from Dawkins Thread

_GoodK · Post by **_GoodK** » Fri May 02, 2008 6:23 pm

marg wrote:This is why I say to you be careful. J certainly has/had an exciting volatile lifestyle with L, never a dull moment.

I appreciate your advice, marg.

_marg · Post by **_marg** » Fri May 02, 2008 6:28 pm

GoodK wrote:
Moniker wrote: Yet, don't speak more on it -- men will start hitting on you

Too late :)

LOL

Post by **_Moniker** » Fri May 02, 2008 6:43 pm

Here's what marg said to Liz:

This coming from someone who thinks discussing the afterlife is a serious discussion and who posts most of the time, flirtatious posts to males on the board. To each their own.

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 2424#52424

I'll try to find one to KA, as well.

I told you before, marg -- I have a good memory:

I stand by this statement:

You often make remarks about other women on this website -- you've done so to KA, as well. You tiff tiff things said and wave other women off by saying essentially, "well you just use your looks/sexuality/whatever to get what you want" -- so what? Why do you care?

Notice, please, I said essentially -- not a direct quote. You mention women's flirting and then attempt to say you can't take them seriously because they do so. You are precisely the type of woman I described above. You like to lambaste other women for sexuality and then shame them for it while asserting some intellectual superiority.

Post by **_Ren** » Fri May 02, 2008 6:44 pm

GoodK wrote:I appreciate your advice, marg.

This response was an insult to your intelligence.
Don't take that the wrong way. Believe it or not, that's actually a compliment.

If your confused, use 'marg logic'. It's kinda like 'negative' logic in computing - turning NOR gates into AND gates and such... Except it works on message boards to confuse the easily lead that a bunch of hateful ranting counts as 'argumentation'.

It's also the same kind of logic that turns the statement 'Suck my balls' into sexual innuendo - rather than another way of saying 'Shove it up your arse - you silly bint'.

Thank goodness most on this board aren't fooled. (Atheist and theist alike I should add...)

Yes - marg IS the atheistic version of charity. And marg doesn't even realise it!
(They both don't bother using a capital letter in their board name either! *Que twilight zone music...*)

Post by **_Moniker** » Fri May 02, 2008 6:48 pm

REN!!!!!!!!! WOOOOP!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj38gVSn9gA

Post by **_Ren** » Fri May 02, 2008 6:56 pm

Howdy Mon ;) How's it going?
...still f'in busy - so shouldn't really be replying. But - ya know - some bull just can't be ignored...

Hang on! Moniker's replied to me...!!! Woooow!
...I'm so over-whelmed with sexual fantasies that - according to 'marg logic', I'll need to throw a sexual innuendo at - wait for it - marg.
Why marg? And not Mon? Ermm - this is marg logic. Don't try to understand it - just roll with it.

Hey - 'marg-ie'. *Best Joey from Friends impression* "How YOU dooooinnn'?!"

_marg · Post by **_marg** » Fri May 02, 2008 7:01 pm

RenegadeOfPhunk wrote:
Yes - marg IS the atheistic version of charity. And marg doesn't even realise it!
(They both don't bother using a capital letter in their board name either! *Que twilight zone music...*)

Lol, I love it, "I'm the atheist version of Charity" Poor Charity what did she do to deserve this treatment?

_GoodK · Post by **_GoodK** » Fri May 02, 2008 7:12 pm

RenegadeOfPhunk wrote:This response was an insult to your intelligence.
Don't take that the wrong way. Believe it or not, that's actually a compliment.

Thanks ROP, you've been MIA for a while it seems...

The thing is, I am fond of Moniker and Marg. I see where Moniker is coming from and from what I know about Moniker I don't think she is seeking out male attention here... and at the same time I think marg was expressing genuine concern in respect to me and my relationships, and I really do appreciate that. So maybe I'll just step aside and keep my mouth shut :)

_marg · Post by **_marg** » Fri May 02, 2008 7:22 pm

I think Tal says it well.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?p=145707&highlight=avatar#145707

And of course, the recent avatar is less provocative of many in the past.

Post by **_Ren** » Fri May 02, 2008 7:31 pm

GoodK wrote:Thanks ROP, you've been MIA for a while it seems...

Yeah - this month has been the busiest month of my life - pretty much.
I'm glad after this weekend, I'll be over the worst of it... (I think *gulp*)

The thing is, I am fond of Moniker and Marg

I get that mate. For all the fist-i-cuffs we've played, you come across as a pretty decent guy to me (most of the time ;) ) - and I understand the awkwardness for you here.
I'm still gonna say what I think though...

So maybe I'll just step aside and keep my mouth shut :)

*shrug* You seem to be OK so far...
...now if you were to try and patch things up with my gal Sam then - heck - who knows how close to 'friendship' we could find ourselves...!

marg wrote:Poor Charity what did she do to deserve this treatment?

She's a theist. 'Those people' deserve everything they get...

by the way marg, I was forced to mentally agree with you when you summarised Dart's contribution to the recent evolution thread. It was quite a shock to the system.
Please make every effort to not make correct statements in future. You're usually pretty good at that - when you put your mind to it...

I think Tal says it well.

As far as how you say it best:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuJrEBtmM1Q