I am sure we all like to be told that talking to you is like banging your head against a wall. Ya, nothing personal there. Actually, I guess that is a compliment then.CameronPoe wrote:
That is NOT a personal attack. You crack me up. It's a statement of the reasoning behind why it's futile for me to continue speaking to lowing on topics of this ilk.usmarine2005 wrote:
That would be a personal attack Cam.CameronPoe wrote:
Talking to lowing is pointless and like banging your head off an extremely intolerant and misguided brick wall that wants sorely to believe 'the sky is falling in'. I quit.CameronPoe wrote:
You won't find me violating forum rules usmarine. I'm far smarter than that.
Lowing admitted himself that he isn't the most tolerant chap in the world. He also is a self-confessed stubborn person, who sticks to whatever position he has adopted whatever happens in a thread. As such, using a metaphor that describes stubbornness isn't exactly a personal attack nor was it meant to be and I'm sure lowing knows that.usmarine2005 wrote:
I am sure we all like to be told that talking to you is like banging your head against a wall. Ya, nothing personal there. Actually, I guess that is a compliment then.
For future reference here are some examples of personal attacks:
"You're a fucking cocksucker."
"Shut the fuck up you cunt."
"What a shithead. I hope he fucking dies."
Not worth it.m3thod wrote:
Collateral.David.P wrote:
Side affects of Al Qaeda may include, Loss of limbs, Honor killings of women, Decapitation, A complete lack of logic in everyday actions, Slaughter of innocent school children to achieve a political goal, Obsessive shouting of the Phrase "Allah Ackbar", Hypocrisy, Having sexual desires for Goats and Sheep, Death, And a runny nose.m3thod wrote:
"Al Qaeda is the cure for American imperialism" - Some guy on the internet.
Check with your local Dictator if Al Qaeda is right for you, If not then "You will burn in the eternal hellfire for Opposing the Will of Allah!"
Well shit Cam, when was the last time you were at a KKK rally in order to form an opinion about them?CameronPoe wrote:
And the last time you were in Europe to see 'all of the new mosques' that are apparently springing up around me was....?lowing wrote:
Soooooooooo, I guess all of the new mosques that are going up is built by who........Christians?
I have never seen mount Everest, but from what I hear it is pretty damn big and I believe it...what is your point?
Yup sure did,..... so. I am not the self proclaimed road scholar.. I make mistakes.m3thod wrote:
You spelt intellect wrong.lowing wrote:
Wow, I would expect someone of your high intelect to understand what the term racist means, and what racial discrimination meansm3thod wrote:
You'll find if i do post any links they will be from credible sources. Having been to university and wrote three different dissertations utilising credible sources to back up my work was essential espcially for someone who is regard in such high esteem i.e. me
I invite you to do a fancy bollox and trawl through my posts to find ANY dodgy sources. You'll be disappointed old pal.
LMAO!!!!!,,,,,,,,,holy shit I love it.David.P wrote:
Side affects of Al Qaeda may include, Loss of limbs, Honor killings of women, Decapitation, A complete lack of logic in everyday actions, Slaughter of innocent school children to achieve a political goal, Obsessive shouting of the Phrase "Allah Ackbar", Hypocrisy, Having sexual desires for Goats and Sheep, Death, And a runny nose.m3thod wrote:
"Al Qaeda is the cure for American imperialism" - Some guy on the internet.fadedsteve wrote:
"Islam is a disease that can only be cured by bullets and depleted uranium"
Check with your local Dictator if Al Qaeda is right for you, If not then "You will burn in the eternal hellfire for Opposing the Will of Allah!"
like your definition of appeasement? lollowing wrote:
Yup sure did,..... so. I am not the self proclaimed road scholar.. I make mistakes.m3thod wrote:
You spelt intellect wrong.lowing wrote:
Wow, I would expect someone of your high intelect to understand what the term racist means, and what racial discrimination means
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Rhodes not road
the word is... spelled... not spelt...lowing wrote:
Yup sure did,..... so. I am not the self proclaimed road scholar.. I make mistakes.m3thod wrote:
You spelt intellect wrong.lowing wrote:
Wow, I would expect someone of your high intelect to understand what the term racist means, and what racial discrimination means
spelt is a hearty wheat... lol
Love is the answer
Nope the definition fits, it has already been shown, your ability to refuse to accept it not withstanding. Hence the attempt at cheap shots.m3thod wrote:
like your definition of appeasement? lollowing wrote:
Yup sure did,..... so. I am not the self proclaimed road scholar.. I make mistakes.m3thod wrote:
You spelt intellect wrong.
I didn't know what spelt was, but I am not one to grade posts in this forum. I try and take the post for its meaning and not its grammar or spelling[TUF]Catbox wrote:
the word is... spelled... not spelt...lowing wrote:
Yup sure did,..... so. I am not the self proclaimed road scholar.. I make mistakes.m3thod wrote:
You spelt intellect wrong.
spelt is a hearty wheat... lol
Bollox, it's been explained time and time again this is not appeasement. It's your dogged refusal to even take on board 22 pages of counter arguments that you should really be looking at.lowing wrote:
Nope the definition fits, it has already been shown, your ability to refuse to accept it not withstanding. Hence the attempt at cheap shots.m3thod wrote:
like your definition of appeasement? lollowing wrote:
Yup sure did,..... so. I am not the self proclaimed road scholar.. I make mistakes.
And i can a lot better than the above for cheap shots, but IG Calibre sums it up pretty well a few pages back.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
well i'll be dammed. Hey look its also used to describe weather![TUF]Catbox wrote:
the word is... spelled... not spelt...lowing wrote:
Yup sure did,..... so. I am not the self proclaimed road scholar.. I make mistakes.m3thod wrote:
You spelt intellect wrong.
spelt is a hearty wheat... lol
Cold spelt end of dinosaurs
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2225779.stm
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Don't have to look further than the OP my dear lowing ... and by calling it Islamic terror you directly called more than the majority of Muslims terrorists, in fact you labeled them all.lowing wrote:
I will ask again for 13th time and maybe someone will finally, once and for all, SHOW ME!!!!! WHERE I SAID THAT THE MAJORITY OF MUSLIMS WERE TERRORISTS OR EVEN EXTREMISTS!!!!!!!
lowing wrote:
Unfortunately it appear GB can no longer face calling Islamic Terror what it is.....ISLAMIC TERROR.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Sorry buddy, you TELLING ME that my opinion is wrong hardly makes it so, boy, Mommy sure did raise one arrogant little guy didn't she?.m3thod wrote:
Bollox, it's been explained time and time again this is not appeasement. It's your dogged refusal to even take on board 22 pages of counter arguments that you should really be looking at.lowing wrote:
Nope the definition fits, it has already been shown, your ability to refuse to accept it not withstanding. Hence the attempt at cheap shots.m3thod wrote:
like your definition of appeasement? lol
And i can a lot better than the above for cheap shots, but IG Calibre sums it up pretty well a few pages back.
Well shit, ya got me there!!!!...........what the hell are you talking about??Varegg wrote:
Don't have to look further than the OP my dear lowing ... and by calling it Islamic terror you directly called more than the majority of Muslims terrorists, in fact you labeled them all.lowing wrote:
I will ask again for 13th time and maybe someone will finally, once and for all, SHOW ME!!!!! WHERE I SAID THAT THE MAJORITY OF MUSLIMS WERE TERRORISTS OR EVEN EXTREMISTS!!!!!!!lowing wrote:
Unfortunately it appear GB can no longer face calling Islamic Terror what it is.....ISLAMIC TERROR.
It is Islamic Terrorism because it is committed by Islamic TErrorIST. If this is the only thing you have to try and disprove my opinions you are stretched wayyyyyyyyyyyy too far. YOu can still be a Muslim without being a terrorist BUT if are a Muslim and commit terrorist acts in the name of ISLAM you pretty much are an Islamic terrorist.
If you are a MOLESTER of Children then you pretty much are a CHILD molester. Not just a molester. jesus
Last edited by lowing (2008-01-21 14:37:49)
Well at least she didnt raise a war profiteer. And you are wrong, get over it.lowing wrote:
Sorry buddy, you TELLING ME that my opinion is wrong hardly makes it so, boy, Mommy sure did raise one arrogant little guy didn't she?.m3thod wrote:
Bollox, it's been explained time and time again this is not appeasement. It's your dogged refusal to even take on board 22 pages of counter arguments that you should really be looking at.lowing wrote:
Nope the definition fits, it has already been shown, your ability to refuse to accept it not withstanding. Hence the attempt at cheap shots.
And i can a lot better than the above for cheap shots, but IG Calibre sums it up pretty well a few pages back.
I'm sure there are some more stories from the daily mail that you can plagiarise and masturbate to.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Where you fail miserably in your arguments lowing is that you use terms that covers more than the target group, referring to islamic terror is equal to naming all Muslims as terrorists.
If you don't think all members of Islam conduct terrorist actions you can't call it Islamic terror, thats the point.
Another example for you is a group named IRA, they are from Ireland - would you call them Irish terrorists ? .... or catholic terrorists ?
ETA, from Spain - are they Spanish terrorists, bask terrorists, catholic ?
It's really the same arguments in a different setting.
You can surely do better than that lowing ...
Have you ever gone back on something you said, have you never been proven wrong on anything ?
If you don't think all members of Islam conduct terrorist actions you can't call it Islamic terror, thats the point.
Another example for you is a group named IRA, they are from Ireland - would you call them Irish terrorists ? .... or catholic terrorists ?
ETA, from Spain - are they Spanish terrorists, bask terrorists, catholic ?
It's really the same arguments in a different setting.
Since when is being a child a race or religion ?lowing wrote:
If you are a MOLESTER of Children then you pretty much are a CHILD molester. Not just a molester. jesus
You can surely do better than that lowing ...
Have you ever gone back on something you said, have you never been proven wrong on anything ?
Last edited by Varegg (2008-01-21 15:30:33)
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Owned to be true!m3thod wrote:
Well at least she didnt raise a war profiteer. And you are wrong, get over it.lowing wrote:
Sorry buddy, you TELLING ME that my opinion is wrong hardly makes it so, boy, Mommy sure did raise one arrogant little guy didn't she?.m3thod wrote:
Bollox, it's been explained time and time again this is not appeasement. It's your dogged refusal to even take on board 22 pages of counter arguments that you should really be looking at.
And i can a lot better than the above for cheap shots, but IG Calibre sums it up pretty well a few pages back.
I'm sure there are some more stories from the daily mail that you can plagiarise and masturbate to.
You have now...lowing wrote:
Well shit Cam, when was the last time you were at a KKK rally in order to form an opinion about them?CameronPoe wrote:
And the last time you were in Europe to see 'all of the new mosques' that are apparently springing up around me was....?lowing wrote:
Soooooooooo, I guess all of the new mosques that are going up is built by who........Christians?
I have never seen mount Everest, but from what I hear it is pretty damn big and I believe it...what is your point?
This is true Cam but let me clarify what I am not tolerant of:CameronPoe wrote:
Lowing admitted himself that he isn't the most tolerant chap in the world. He also is a self-confessed stubborn person, who sticks to whatever position he has adopted whatever happens in a thread. As such, using a metaphor that describes stubbornness isn't exactly a personal attack nor was it meant to be and I'm sure lowing knows that.usmarine2005 wrote:
I am sure we all like to be told that talking to you is like banging your head against a wall. Ya, nothing personal there. Actually, I guess that is a compliment then.
For future reference here are some examples of personal attacks:
"You're a fucking cocksucker."
"Shut the fuck up you cunt."
"What a shithead. I hope he fucking dies."
1. Self pity
2. laziness
3. Lack of respect regarding ones appearance
4. criminal behavior
5. personal Irresponsibility when everyone else is blamed
6. free rides when one does not feel the need to contribute to the ride they are getting
8. political correctness ( I believe in telling the truth no matter how harsh it might be. ( except when my wife asks if I like her new haircut)
9. race cards
10. discrimination, reverse discrimination and affirmative action
11. asparagus!!
No where here, or in any of my posts in my history of posting here, can you, or will you find me untrue to this. If I am stubborn, which I am, it is because I have not been convinced that my opinion is wrong, or any less correct than anyone elses view point. I stick to my opinions because I think they are either correct or justified.
I feel this OP is appeasement, regardless of it is smart or not, and none of you has convinced me otherwise.
I am, My company compensated me well for leaving my family, going over to Iraq, and employ my skills to improve our equipment used to fight this war. Do you honestly think I would go over to that ASSHOLE part of the world for free? I think not. I was smart enough to learn a trade that made me and my skills marketable. I will not apologize to you or anyone else for it. What I did, already contributed in saving American lives and I am proud of that. I support this war, and our troops. I did so long before I knew I was even going to be a part of it.daddyofdeath wrote:
Owned to be true!m3thod wrote:
Well at least she didnt raise a war profiteer. And you are wrong, get over it.lowing wrote:
Sorry buddy, you TELLING ME that my opinion is wrong hardly makes it so, boy, Mommy sure did raise one arrogant little guy didn't she?.
I'm sure there are some more stories from the daily mail that you can plagiarise and masturbate to.
Nope, it does not, Islamic terror references who the terrorists are and their motivations, both of which are IslamicVaregg wrote:
Where you fail miserably in your arguments lowing is that you use terms that covers more than the target group, referring to islamic terror is equal to naming all Muslims as terrorists.
If you don't think all members of Islam conduct terrorist actions you can't call it Islamic terror, thats the point.
Another example for you is a group named IRA, they are from Ireland - would you call them Irish terrorists ? .... or catholic terrorists ?
ETA, from Spain - are they Spanish terrorists, bask terrorists, catholic ?
It's really the same arguments in a different setting.Since when is being a child a race or religion ?lowing wrote:
If you are a MOLESTER of Children then you pretty much are a CHILD molester. Not just a molester. jesus
You can surely do better than that lowing ...
Have you ever gone back on something you said, have you never been proven wrong on anything ?
LOL, yeah the IRA, sure I would call them Irish terrorists, terrorists from Spain, you bet I would call them Spainish terrorists. are you telling me that by calling them what they are I am inaccurate??
If you had a group of Mexicans blowing shit up in the US in the name of Mexico, would we not be calling them Mexican terrorists?
If a gang of midgets roamed the streets blowing up shit, I would call them midget terrorists. I can say with GREAT CERTAINTY that I would not be calling them ANTI-MIDGET ACTIVISTS!!!
Last edited by lowing (2008-01-21 20:46:38)
In fairness to you, you did concede that this is in no way an appeasement of terrorists so I guess you might be softening up a little in your old age!lowing wrote:
No where here, or in any of my posts in my history of posting here, can you, or will you find me untrue to this. If I am stubborn, which I am, it is because I have not been convinced that my opinion is wrong, or any less correct than anyone elses view point. I stick to my opinions because I think they are either correct or justified.
I feel this OP is appeasement, regardless of it is smart or not, and none of you has convinced me otherwise.
You failed to concede in the light of plain factual information on the war principles of Islam that this terrorism is in fact contrary to Islamic doctrine and law.
You failed to concede in the light of pure obviousness and logic that this terrorism is detrimental to Islam in a general sense with unwarranted anti-Muslim sentiment rising, i.e., the terrorism is anti-Islam (counter to the interests of Muslims).
You failed to concede that the British government will still refer to terrorism as terrorism and that they will be quite clear who perpetrated it, and that as such they are not hiding anything.
You failed to concede that by the British government dropping their highly insulting and generalised term for this type of terrorism nobody is impacted upon detrimentally and that only positive effects arise thereof.
To be honest you should have entitled the thread "Great Britain should continue to use a term that insults and degrades the innocent law-abiding and peaceful British Muslim community."
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-22 00:30:26)
25 pages of arguing semantics is pretty funny.
Xbone Stormsurgezz