Aziz, would you mind amending your title to "A few atheists behaving badly"? I think that would be more correct. And if you take into consideration the third comment in the comments section:
Igorant atheists evolutionist like RICHARD DAWKINS can blabber all he like about his poppycock bull poo but he is very ignorant on where humans came from but all he can prove is his own stupididy
then I think you'd want to amend your title to "Jerks behaving badly" and leave it at that. Aren't you glad that people here adhere to higher standards of propriety?
Given the (fortunatly rare) occurance of false convictions, one would not be correct to say that the wrongly imprisoned's guilt was 'proven'. However, it would be correct to say that the jury was convinced.
There are people out there who enjoy being offended, and actively look for excuses to rant. (I have to say that it must have been a poor news day if my invitation was the most offensive thing he could find.) They come in all shapes, sizes and systems of belief. The internet seems to have fostered them.
Chris, that comment you quote is by a guy who's a fairly well known, how shall I say, eccentric, commenter on right-of-center blogs. He comments under several different bird-related names, but you can always tell it's him by his "style".
Everyone either laughs him off, or regards him somewhat affectionately, as they might a mascot.
I don't get the whole 'pick on girls' aspect of this, unless you are stating that if a female says something it should be automatically accepted whether correct or not because they are too fragile to face disagreement.
While I don't particularly agree with the linked post, I don't see it as 'picking on girls.' The gender of the writer of either post doesn't seem relevant to me. Neither post even references gender.
actually, the BJ commenters are witty even when they are lampooning the left. They are almost always hilarious. i am really only put off when the target of their wit is a friend.
I didnt know it was the same Michael D. I think that makes his post even more unfair, since he had the full benefit of the debate on willows thread before running off to BJ to poke fun about it.
I think the 'girl' part of Aziz's title was in fun. That's how I, the girl, interpreted it at any rate. I don't feel victimized because of my gender and I don't think Aziz thinks I do either.
I think the 'girl' part of Aziz's title was in fun. That's how I, the girl, interpreted it at any rate. I don't feel victimized because of my gender and I don't think Aziz thinks I do either.
Yeah, I figured. That's why I said Aziz was picking on Gay men - for fun. The sexual preference or gender in either post was irrelevant. :-)
It was indeed in fun, though technically since Michael's post about Willow was out of the blue and grossly mischaracterized her as some kind of religious theistic zealot, "picking on" is pretty accurate. What I am doing to Michael is only "picking on" in the sense of "pointing out how wrong his post is about the target of his ire". If that be pickin' on, then pickin' on I be.
Girls and gay men are merely nouns, to clarify the semantic target of said picking on or pickin' on.
Rosemary, utterly unrelated, like yourself I find myself also preferring the italic method of replying, rather than blockquote. It just seems more civilized somehow.
I like clean lines. The blockquote is fine for frontpage but in comments it looks rather distorted and not always clear.
11.29.2007 12:11am
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.
Igorant atheists evolutionist like RICHARD DAWKINS can blabber all he like about his poppycock bull poo but he is very ignorant on where humans came from but all he can prove is his own stupididy
then I think you'd want to amend your title to "Jerks behaving badly" and leave it at that. Aren't you glad that people here adhere to higher standards of propriety?
I can't prove to you that BSG is the best show on TV, but I may (or may not) be able to convince you.
Given the (fortunatly rare) occurance of false convictions, one would not be correct to say that the wrongly imprisoned's guilt was 'proven'. However, it would be correct to say that the jury was convinced.
Sure, as a leftist you probably see them that way.
Of course, when you disagree with them, you get "hilarious, witty, incisive" comments like the post you didn't like.
Everyone either laughs him off, or regards him somewhat affectionately, as they might a mascot.
While I don't particularly agree with the linked post, I don't see it as 'picking on girls.' The gender of the writer of either post doesn't seem relevant to me. Neither post even references gender.
Michael D, btw, is the same Michael Demmons that has been commenting here for years and years.
I didnt know it was the same Michael D. I think that makes his post even more unfair, since he had the full benefit of the debate on willows thread before running off to BJ to poke fun about it.
Yeah, I figured. That's why I said Aziz was picking on Gay men - for fun. The sexual preference or gender in either post was irrelevant. :-)
Girls and gay men are merely nouns, to clarify the semantic target of said picking on or pickin' on.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.