On 19 Nov '05 02:04, The Chess Express wrote:
To the relief of the rest of the forum I’ll consider leaving to avoid any further hypocrisy.


Here are some of The Chess Express's posts that I have picked out over the past seven days.

Do we want him in our forum? I vote yes. His contributions are valuable.
Witness...


17 Nov '05 17:07
Feel free to start a thread.


17 Nov '05 19:00
double post


17 Nov '05 19:18
I hit the reply instead of the edit button.


17 Nov '05 19:29
I guess this is enough to prove your point even though you are completely wrong.


18 Nov '05 16:24
You sure do get hassled easy. If that’s the way you feel then why post in here?


19 Nov '05 01:06
Quack Quack Quack, it's people like you who make me realize how pointless the arguments are.


19 Nov '05 02:04
To the relief of the rest of the forum I’ll consider leaving to avoid any further hypocrisy.


19 Nov '05 01:31
The Romans very much saw Jesus as a threat to the entire empire.


18 Nov '05 23:48
Each book in the Bible was written by a different author.


12 Nov '05 15:41
God seems bizarre to those who don't know him.


05 Nov '05 20:16
At this point, I’m not sure how I could have true faith in the story of Noah, though I do believe it.


05 Nov '05 19:40
Think of faith as a type of proof that refers only to God.

First he should be stoned, then he should be burned, then he should be burried alive, then he should be beheaded, then there should be pissed on his grave, but he should not be banned.😉

Yes. Even though we disagree on many issues, he is polite, and respectful. I think he is a credit to this forum.🙂

Who?

Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
First he should be stoned, then he should be burned, then he should be burried alive, then he should be beheaded, then there should be pissed on his grave, but he should not be banned.😉

Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
First he should be stoned, then he should be burned, then he should be burried alive, then he should be beheaded, then there should be pissed on his grave, but he should not be banned.😉

Oh the Irony!


LMAO


I love irony especially when it is ironic!

Good Show!

RTh

Yes, he's an incompotent boob-sucking baby, but that's no bannable offense!
OTOH, running around forums alerting posts willy-nilly might incur a forum ban.

Originally posted by KneverKnight
Yes, he's an incompotent boob-sucking baby, but that's no bannable offense!
OTOH, running around forums alerting posts willy-nilly might incur a forum ban.

Originally posted by KneverKnight
Yes, he's an incompotent boob-sucking baby, but that's no bannable offense!
OTOH, running around forums alerting posts willy-nilly might incur a forum ban.

Originally posted by howardgee
If we were to start banning folk on the grounds of stupidity, irrationality and sheer dumb-founded stubborness, then we would have to ban all of the following;

KYJelly, DimJim, ChessExpress, Halitosis, PRatx, RB'sIll, LucifersStammer, etc.

Sounds like a top class idea! When can we start?

Originally posted by flyUnity
wow, Im not on your list? 🙂 that is amazing... no wait, that is a bad thing 🙁

Originally posted by howardgee
It's a measure of how bad they all are, that they make you seem reasonable.

Originally posted by howardgee
Apologies too go to Chancremechanic.

You would be on the list, but recently you have been displaying a modicum of reason.

Scary.