What? Asking for a little PROOF is being a dork? The fact remains... I NEVER said anything like that and he accused me of it. I'd like a little proof or is almighty RebelKev above the burden of proof?

Still waiting RebelKev...

Here's what I want in a candidate:


[quote][b]

Tick... tick... tick...

At least just admit that you put words in my mouth...

nate jonesacc Wrote:What? Asking for a little PROOF is being a dork? The fact remains... I NEVER said anything like that and he accused me of it. I'd like a little proof or is almighty RebelKev above the burden of proof?

Still waiting RebelKev...

So what??? You didnt need to say it twice...its a waste of bandwidth. :rolleyes:

nate jonesacc Wrote:Tick... tick... tick...

At least just admit that you put words in my mouth...

It was a generalized statement of your hate of Republicans.

RebelKev Wrote:

nate jonesacc Wrote:Tick... tick... tick...

At least just admit that you put words in my mouth...

It was a generalized statement of your hate of Republicans.

LOL, I especially find that funny... considering I picked Arnold in this poll, would vote for him, and I intend on voting for whoever the GOP candidate is in 2008 (I'm about 2 months short for 2004) so long as Hillary isn't elected.

"My hate for all Republicans"... I hate Bill Frist and John McCain. :rolleyes: Sarcastic

nate jonesacc Wrote:"My hate for all Republicans"... I hate Bill Frist and John McCain. :rolleyes: Sarcastic

Bill Frist? You hate a guy that donates about a month each year to provide charitable medical care for impoverished Africans? Charming Nate.

See my sig. :laugh:

RebelKev Wrote:

nate jonesacc Wrote:"My hate for all Republicans"... I hate Bill Frist and John McCain.  :rolleyes: Sarcastic

Bill Frist? You hate a guy that donates about a month each year to provide charitable medical care for impoverished Africans? Charming Nate.

No, you freaking moron... I LIKE Bill Frist and hope like hell he'll run in 2008. Why the **** do you think I wrote "sarcastic" after that?

Dude you really are one of the dumbest people on these boards... and you have tough competition like Terpy here, who says "see my sig" and has no sig.

nate jonesacc Wrote:No, you freaking moron... I LIKE Bill Frist and hope like hell he'll run in 2008. Why the **** do you think I wrote "sarcastic" after that?

Dude you really are one of the dumbest people on these boards... and you have tough competition like Terpy here, who says "see my sig" and has no sig.

We're back to name-calling again? Ok, I will RE-offer the challenge.

Let's compare education, IQ, achievements, and standing.......then we'll have a basis for an argument. I am pretty sure your 16 year life doesn't offer much of any. If you can't understand how ASCII text can sometimes be ambiguous when it comes to emotion, then it is you that is dumb.

First of all, it should read "then it is you who is dumb.", since you're talking about language and everything.

So, basically, you're saying you didn't see the word "sarcastic" in my response? :laugh:

I will MORE than happily compare my achievements to yours when I am 30 years old. When I have had the opportunity to go to a four year college, law/divinity school and potential further education after that, I will compare achievements.

As for now, until you learn the difference between "who" and "that", and stop putting words into people's mouths, you are an idiot.

nate jonesacc Wrote:First of all, it should read "then it is you who is dumb.", since you're talking about language and everything.

So, basically, you're saying you didn't see the word "sarcastic" in my response? :laugh:

I will MORE than happily compare my achievements to yours when I am 30 years old. When I have had the opportunity to go to a four year college, law/divinity school and potential further education after that, I will compare achievements.

As for now, until you learn the difference between "who" and "that", and stop putting words into people's mouths, you are an idiot.

If I was authoring a thesis paper, it would be in proper English. However, I am talking on a college sports message board, so I am a little relaxed. Nice attempt at an insult.......but no cigar. You have lost if that's the only argument you have.


....and when you are 30, I will STILL have 4 times as many accomplishments, education, etc.

Now, go to divinity school. I am sure your peers will love your profane and offensive vocabulary.

Quote:I will MORE than happily compare my achievements to yours when I am 30 years old. When I have had the opportunity to go to a four year college, law/divinity school and potential further education after that, I will compare achievements.

By the way, there are many errors in this quote. Shall I identify them, or do you wish to do it?

LOL, profanity matters a lot when it comes to spirituality... Time magazine's Religious Man of the Year has one of the loosest tongues I've ever met. FWIW, when I was listening to him lecture, he offended about 3/4 of the people there, and used plenty of profanity. I would love for you to start an "argument" with me over spiritual matters. It's a theologian's duty to offend some people who don't know the truth.

That brings up another point. You constantly think that someone wins or loses a discussion. When there is rational discussion and people realize another viewpoint, or agree to disagree, both sides "win". No one ever "wins" an argument when one side flames the other or is irrational. Therefore, you have never "won" an "argument" on this message board. You've only made a fool of yourself to many, many people.

RebelKev Wrote:

Quote:I will MORE than happily compare my achievements to yours when I am 30 years old. When I have had the opportunity to go to a four year college, law/divinity school and potential further education after that, I will compare achievements.

By the way, there are many errors in this quote. Shall I identify them, or do you wish to do it?

None of them are nearly as glaring as confusing "who" and "that". Basically, to say "that" is to refer to an object or idea. To say "who" is to refer to a person.

nate jonesacc Wrote:LOL, profanity matters a lot when it comes to spirituality... Time magazine's Religious Man of the Year has one of the loosest tongues I've ever met. FWIW, when I was listening to him lecture, he offended about 3/4 of the people there, and used plenty of profanity. I would love for you to start an "argument" with me over spiritual matters. It's a theologian's duty to offend some people who don't know the truth.

That brings up another point. You constantly think that someone wins or loses a discussion. When there is rational discussion and people realize another viewpoint, or agree to disagree, both sides "win". No one ever "wins" an argument when one side flames the other or is irrational. Therefore, you have never "won" an "argument" on this message board. You've only made a fool of yourself to many, many people.

....sooooo, a shepard should lead his flock by example? He shouldn't lead a life that God would be proud of? He shouldn't lead a life that is deemed moral by the society in which he is living? What damn religion ARE you, the Branch Davidian version of Pentacostal?

nate jonesacc Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:

Quote:I will MORE than happily compare my achievements to yours when I am 30 years old. When I have had the opportunity to go to a four year college, law/divinity school and potential further education after that, I will compare achievements.

By the way, there are many errors in this quote. Shall I identify them, or do you wish to do it?

None of them are nearly as glaring as confusing "who" and "that". Basically, to say "that" is to refer to an object or idea. To say "who" is to refer to a person.

Maybe I WAS referring to you as a that....as you are a tool.

Nate, if you're gonna post, post. It says you've been posting in this thread for about 20 minutes now. What, trying to do some research? Son, that comes with experience that you don't have...so I don't hold it against you.....IF you'll admit that you are just a 16 Y/O punk that only regurgitates what he has heard from "other" knowledgable sources.

This is what I'm talking about:

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Member Name Location Time
RebelKev Viewing Online List Aug 14 2003, 07:27 PM

nate jonesacc Posting in forum: The Spin Room Aug 14 2003, 07:25 PM


IU_lauren3 Viewing Topic: The Either/Or Game Aug 14 2003, 07:10 PM

Guest Viewing Topic: GTS Aug 14 2003, 07:06 PM

Guest Viewing Board Index Aug 14 2003, 06:59 PM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

..and I did the timing.

Yes, a shepard should lead his flock by example. I'm sure you've never heard of him, but St. Augustine of Hippo, one of the greatest theologians ever (especially post Christ theologians) said in his confessions "But how can people call upon someone in whom they do not believe? And how can they believe without a preacher?" This is also Romans 10:14. So bust out your RebelKev Bible and look it up. Augustine is saying that in order to believe in God, there must be someone who preaches to you, and leads by example. Much like the Pope does for Catholics, there must be someone who plays the role of Christ; who is the mediator between God and man. The Pope, a very pious person, is a teacher and shepard to his sheep just like the 12 disciples were sheep of Jesus.

God would be very proud of Stanley Hauerwas (the man in question). Please bust out your warhawk Bible and find me incontrovertible evidence that using societal profanity is a sin. It isn't. Cursing in the Bible or any other religious document is solely taking the Lord's name in vain. Any other "curse", like ******, ****, ******, slut etc... is strictly a societal curse.

I'm confident that the Lord is more proud of either myself, or Dr. Hauerwas than you. Ever think about your insistence on taking life that God created? As St. Augustine further states in his confessions, "No, my God, I would not exist, I would not be at all, were you not in me. Or should I say, rather, that I should not exist if I were not in you, from whom are all things, through whom are all things, in whom are all things?" So, because we exist, God is in us. We are Godly creatures, created in his own divine image. Therefore, would it not be hating God to hate another person, especially enough to kill him/her? To sum it up in one line: To kill another person is to hate God.

Your good friend Dr. Hauerwas wrote in his book "The Truth About God", about each commandment in each chapter. When it came to "Thou shalt not murder" there wasn't too much fudgery. How much can you fudge around with "THOU SHALT NOT MURDER". John LeNoue, with his wife Kaywin, born-again Christians, explaining why they own handguns, said "In the commandments, the actual Hebrew is not, "Thou shalt not kill." It is in fact, "Thou shalt not murder." So this is self-defense." In reality, the Hebrew verb "to kill" does mean murder in certain contexts (1 Kings 21:19), but it can also refer to unintentional killing (Deuteronomy 4:41-42), as well as to execution of a duly convicted killer (Numbers 35:30). "Thou shalt not murder" is a sweeping, broad statement which is terse, simple and to the point. God does not say "Thou shalt not murder; only in certain circumstances", He says "THOU SHALT NOT MURDER."

I eagerly await your eloquent response.