Originally posted by SuzianneWhere you see an "answer", I see evasion. For example, suggesting that someone appeal to "God" to help them find belief in that "God", when the matter in hand is that they don't believe in that "God", is just an evasive circular logic-type 'answer' to a point blank yes-no question.
Here's the problem with you trotting this question out again. He answered your question. Just because you cannot see what he is saying doesn't mean you have to ask again, maybe in hopes of getting an answer more to your liking. People answer this every time you drag it back out. But you, in your apparent "wisdom", feel that this question is somehow "una ...[text shortened]... [b]that's why you trot it out, over and over again, all the while ignoring people's answers.[/b]
29 Feb 16
Originally posted by SuzianneWhole time your effort be better employed asking Grampy Bobby why he continually refuses to answer the question? Therein lies something of interest.
Here's the problem with you trotting this question out again. He answered your question. Just because you cannot see what he is saying doesn't mean you have to ask again, maybe in hopes of getting an answer more to your liking. People answer this every time you drag it back out. But you, in your apparent "wisdom", feel that this question is somehow "una ...[text shortened]... [b]that's why you trot it out, over and over again, all the while ignoring people's answers.[/b]
01 Mar 16
Originally posted by divegeesterOnly to you and others who want to vilify him. I wouldn't answer loaded, vicious questions either. I'm guessing his reasons are his own. Ask him. And no, I'm not going to join your witch hunt.
Whole time your effort be better employed asking Grampy Bobby why he continually refuses to answer the question? Therein lies something of interest.
Why people on this site continually do this thing, where they hold third parties responsible somehow for not accosting the person they've decided they're going to vilify for merely holding their differing opinion, is beyond me.
01 Mar 16
Originally posted by FMFSo, instead, you decide to vilify them for holding a differing opinion. How adult.
Where you see an "answer", I see evasion. For example, suggesting that someone appeal to "God" to help them find belief in that "God", when the matter in hand is that they don't believe in that "God", is just an evasive circular logic-type 'answer' to a point blank yes-no question.
As I said, they've answered you. If you choose to ignore their answer merely because it is not what you want to hear, then too bad. Stop wasting the time of everyone else in the forum by peppering them with a question they've already answered. When you do this, you disrespect the OP and the thread you do this in, by making it all about you, instead of the discussion already in progress.
01 Mar 16
Originally posted by FMFYou just always assume that people who disagree with you are evil, don't you?
He's 'quoting' statements and questions and then addressing them but the the things he's putting in quotation marks are not the same as the statements or questions that I've put to him. It's a rhetorical device used to dodge the matter in hand.
That answers a lot of questions about your behavior in these forums.
Originally posted by SuzianneThe question to GB by FMF is neither loaded nor vicious nor constitutes a witch hunt, nor vilification; why you would keep insisting it is, is driven by your childish, partisan paranoia.
Only to you and others who want to vilify him. I wouldn't answer loaded, vicious questions either. I'm guessing his reasons are his own. Ask him. And no, I'm not going to join your witch hunt.
Why people on this site continually do this thing, where they hold third parties responsible somehow for not accosting the person they've decided they're going to vilify for merely holding their differing opinion, is beyond me.
In fact the question is an apt response to Grampy Bobby in reference to his repeated commentary that someone can "choose to believe". Your hysteria over this type of thing just makes you look silly.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28791
01 Mar 16
Originally posted by DeepThoughtIndeed.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague02.asp
See article 32, the bearer of the white flag is not required to be intending to negotiate a surrender.
'The first mention of the usage of white flags to surrender is made during the Eastern Han dynasty (A.D 25–220). In the Roman Empire, the historian Cornelius Tacitus mentions a white flag of surrender in A.D. 109. Before that time, Roman armies would surrender by holding their shields above their heads. The white flag was widely used in the Middle Ages in Western Europe to indicate an intent to surrender. The color white was used generally to indicate a person was exempt from combat; heralds bore white wands, prisoners or hostages captured in battle would attach a piece of white paper to their hat or helmet, and garrisons that had surrendered and been promised safe passage to safety would carry white batons. In 1625, Hugo Grotius in De jure belli ac pacis (On the Law of War and Peace), one of the foundational texts in international law, recognized the white flag as a "sign, to which use has given a signification;" it was "a tacit sign of demanding a parley, and shall be as obligatory, as if expressed by words."
Source(s):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flag
Originally posted by Suzianne'feel free to ignore me at anytime' - divesjeester
Here's the problem with you trotting this question out again. He answered your question. Just because you cannot see what he is saying doesn't mean you have to ask again, maybe in hopes of getting an answer more to your liking. People answer this every time you drag it back out. But you, in your apparent "wisdom", feel that this question is somehow "una ...[text shortened]... [b]that's why you trot it out, over and over again, all the while ignoring people's answers.[/b]
01 Mar 16
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeHaha! something needed to make me less handsome otherwise women would be throwing themselves from tall buildings at my awesomeness, 'there is only one robbie and hes so beautiful, its too much for me. . . . . .''
The only thing that chose you sir was the ugly stick.
😏
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28791
01 Mar 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSelf delusion is highly treatable these days sir. I recommend a course of CBT Therapy.
Haha! something needed to make me less handsome otherwise women would be throwing themselves from tall buildings at my awesomeness, 'there is only one robbie and hes so beautiful, its too much for me. . . . . .''
01 Mar 16
Originally posted by divegeesterI think FMF calls this "a swing and a miss".
The question to GB by FMF is neither loaded nor vicious nor constitutes a witch hunt, nor vilification; why you would keep insisting it is, is driven by your childish, partisan paranoia.
In fact the question is an apt response to Grampy Bobby in reference to his repeated commentary that someone can "choose to believe". Your hysteria over this type of thing just makes you look silly.