This is the neeewwwwws!

[Myshkin]

So you insinuated it as a genuine possibility that people should look out for. So yes, you did say that. Unless you are totally out of touch with what is implied with what you write, which is a distinct possibility given your low levels of intelligence.

Low levels of intelligence? Again, you're really not with it are you? :D

Don't give it up, it's charming - in the same way as an unusually fat and noisy piglet is.

You still can't cite me saying more than 'there is a Christian right' which is all I said. So do us all a favour and give it a rest.

Knockando - care to expound?

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

Low levels of intelligence? Again, you're really not with it are you? :D

Don't give it up, it's charming - in the same way as an unusually fat and noisy piglet is.

You still can't cite me saying more than 'there is a Christian right' which is all I said. So do us all a favour and give it a rest.

Knockando - care to expound?

So what you're saying is is that you don't have the ingelligence to realise that was implied in what you said, even if after the fact you apparently didn't mean that?

Last word Sam strikes again! You see, what you have to say is just "back on topic", not "my argument" followed by "back on topic", or "petty ad hom" followed by "back on topic". Otherwise it's just clear to everyone you just want the last word y'see. Don't just expect me to fall into line and give way to you because you're a mod, it isn't going to happen.

 

[knock]

Knockando - care to expound?

I don't think the Christian Right is a political force worth worrying about.

You do pull that trick of having the last word and "moving on...."

That's from today.

 

[Marmalade]

pedantry aside, and in summary:
the religious 'anything' in the UK, doesn't mean shit, and has no real or consequential influence in the UK (both now, and in the near future)

the religious right in the US has a substantial amount of influence in the US

anyone disagree?

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

pedantry aside, and in summary:
the religious 'anything' in the UK, doesn't mean shit, and has no real or consequential influence in the UK (both now, and in the near future)

the religious right in the US has a substantial amount of influence in the US

anyone disagree?

I don't think Christians are a cohesive force in the UK, and they haven't been for a long time. They have no powers from above telling them what to care about or what to get angry about. That's the difference between here and America. In America, politicians have got into government again and again by telling extremely religious people that what they should care about is abortions, or gay rights, or other trivial issues, because they can't actually change anything of any importance like the economy or healthcare. There has been some seepage of these nutcases, because headless Christians look to America for inspiration on how to behave and what to believe. But they are outweighed 100s to one just by moderate Christians, and thousands to one by atheists who have no time for their bullshit.

 

[Myshkin]

You do pull that trick of having the last word and "moving on...."

That's from today.

The thing is, it's called 'getting back on topic'. People are bored by arguments between two people, especially when they follow the bizarre path that Bluntsy's do.

Marmz, just because (x) is bigger than (y) doesn't mean (y) hasn't grown in influence substantially.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

The thing is, it's called 'getting back on topic'. People are bored by arguments between two people, especially when they follow the bizarre path that Bluntsy's do.

Marmz, just because (x) is bigger than (y) doesn't mean (y) hasn't grown in influence substantially.

See my post above, where I effectively illustrate that it is getting the last word in and not getting back on topic that you are interested in. You always make a point or an insult, then say back on topic, as if you were above it all along. When that isn't what people who are above it, like say Kate, do. You know, those mods who aren't total arseholes and approach the position with at least a modicum of professionalism? The ones who don't make user after user leave us?

 

[Myshkin]

You're really obsessed aren't you?

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

You're really obsessed aren't you?

You forgot "Moving on".

 

[Marmalade]

The thing is, it's called 'getting back on topic'. People are bored by arguments between two people, especially when they follow the bizarre path that Bluntsy's do.

Marmz, just because (x) is bigger than (y) doesn't mean (y) hasn't grown in influence substantially.

anglicans are way too conflicted internally to be able to be of relevance anywhere, or a relevant force to anything aspiring to be influencial when it comes to mainstream politics atm

the main problem they face is internal. they don't have any influence barring the legalities which they are currently intrinsically (and legally) intertwinned with, with regards to current laws.

anything above and beyond that theyre way out of their depth and influence as far as I can tell atm

[edit] but I am semi drunk and writing is becoming increasingly difficult

I do however believe Bluntsie (and you) should be able to ramble on this subject til your hearts are content ... cause that's just how I roll ;p

(eh, maybe take it to thee debate thread Kate created if it's bothersome. personally i don't give a fuck, as long as it's able to be debated with some continuity of posts, anyway )

 

[Myshkin]

You need to move on Bluntsy... 8)

Yeah Marmz - I agree that Anglicans are mostly thicko zealots, but they make a lot of noise, y'know?

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

You need to move on Bluntsy... 8)

Yeah Marmz - I agree that Anglicans are mostly thicko zealots, but they make a lot of noise, y'know?

See you just can't help yourself. At least I admit it, and would never inflict myself as a mod on the users of this forum. You are once against clutching at straws and chopping and changing your argument. It is like nailing jelly to the wall..

 

[knock]

The thing is, it's called 'getting back on topic'. People are bored by arguments between two people, especially when they follow the bizarre path that Bluntsy's do.

But you have mod power. Why not let the non-mod have the last word, then get back on topic?

I'm in no way suggesting you stop discussing stuff, Sam, and I'm not under any illusion that you would take notice anyway, but there is some virtue in Kate's policy of not getting into arguments. When she wields the mod stick there is no such controversy.

 

[Albion]

I know you're clearly riled by this particular mannerism of Sam's, MSB, but there's nothing in the rules about not being allowed to do this. I'm not sure what you expect to achieve by bringing this up again and again and again and again.

It's becoming a tad on the harassing side. And harassment is against the rules....

 

[knock]

It's not about rules though is it?

 

[Myshkin]

But you have mod power. Why not let the non-mod have the last word, then get back on topic?

So it's merely the power dynamic?

Th thing is, I always let someone have 'the last word' before I say 'back on topic' becuse I only ask to return to topic when hostilities threaten to derail the thread.

 

[knock]

But you clearly do not! The last word (yours) and the request to return to topic take place in the same post!

And yeah it is about the power dynamic, if that's what you want to call it.

 

[Marmalade]

You need to move on Bluntsy... 8)

Yeah Marmz - I agree that Anglicans are mostly thicko zealots, but they make a lot of noise, y'know?

not anymore they don't

 

[Myshkin]

Yeah, but I don't tend to respond to what has usually become personal jibes by that stage, and instead state my case. Which is usually in keeping with the topic.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

I know you're clearly riled by this particular mannerism of Sam's, MSB, but there's nothing in the rules about not being allowed to do this. I'm not sure what you expect to achieve by bringing this up again and again and again and again.

It's becoming a tad on the harassing side. And harassment is against the rules....

Yes, he can change his behaviour or stop abusing his mod position. One or the other. There are 3 or 4 other mods on EADD who manage to do the job without being twats. I only bring it up every time he does it, it's not like it's just out of the blue... You seem to be asking the non-mod to let the mod get one over on him by abusing his position. It is always implied, after he has made his comment and followed it with "moving on" or "back on topic" that if I dare to respond to his point or insult then I will feel the mods wrath. And it clearly irritates him that I would dare question him, because he has grown quite use to this being his little fiefdom.