Posted on 12/05/2005 8:13:08 PM PST by Will_Zurmacht
My guess is that this has nothing to do with his anti-Christian remarks. More likely, it has something to do with a personal relationship.
Hattrick joined a week ago.
If you don't know sarcasm when you see it, then I hardly think you'll know gloating. You only wish it were so. Like this bubblehead professor, you relish opportunities to bash those who believe differently than yourself, if not physically, then verbally. The point seems to escape you and your cheerleaders that this bubblehead professor used inflammatory language. It's possible a few folks out there took him at his word. Save your self-righteous indignation for some who cares; for someone to whom it applies.
Or do you really think I am so dense as to believe the physical beating of a bubble-headed ideologue scores points for creationism?
very droll
If you call that gloating then the charge is correct: plumb dumb wrong.
Again you are too much of a coward to actually ping me.
It disappoints me to know so many Freepers use this to turn against each other.
*************
I couldn't have said it better.
For the record, I am against beating up others who disagree with me. I must say, however, that I would not be surprised to learn that this story is false.
If you take the trouble to look into them, not all religions are created equal. For believers, the first question is truth. For a bystander, the first question ought to be, what do they teach? What are their fruits? Contrary to what you suggest, Islam has a long historical record of violence, intolerance, slavery, invasion, forcible conversion, enslavement, and mistreatment of women. Some Christians are guilty of similar behavior, but their religion doesn't teach them that that is right.
If you take the trouble to investigation, you will find that Muhammed himself was a killer, a rapist, an enslaver, and an oathbreaker, but all these deeds were excused and glorified IN THE EARLIEST WRITINGS because they were done to "infidels." Not all Muslims are bad people by any means, but that's usually because they don't fully live their religion or because they are deluded about their religion.
The fruits of Islam through the centuries have generally been ignorance and laziness--men served by four wives and a company of slaves. When they have enjoyed periods of high civilization, it has generally been a matter of living off the remains of civilizations they have conquered and eventually ground into dust. The fruits of Christianity have been a much greater degree of freedom and independence, plus the rise of science and technology in the west that has never been matched anywhere else in the world for more than short periods that were not followed up.
No. You misjudge the tone and character of my words so you can do a little gloating of your own. Or do you really think I believe broken teeth and bruises score points for creationism? Do you really think I am ready to don a red hat and wool gloves to make a point? LOL!
Perhaps a sarcasm tag would have been a good idea. It would have prevented this confusion.
Here's a hypothetical example of how sarcasm tags work:
'I hope no churches get burned down over this. /sarcasm'
Of course, my use of the tag here is incorrect because I truly do hope no churches get burned down over this. You see how they can clarify the meaning of a statement though.
I think maybe the confrontation happened, and that there were two men in a pickup. But I seriously doubt that they beat him up because they were Christians.
Most likely they were tailgaiting, he got a fit of road rage, they both pulled over, he stupidly got out of his car and started to berate them, and they beat him up.
I have occasionally been tailgated by pickups full of drunken rednecks over the course of a number of years, and usually I pull over and let them go by. I still remember one instance when a couple of kids flashed by and, because I didn't pull over quickly enough, the kid in the driver's seat opened his door--at around 80 MPH--leaned out on it, and mooned me. I was a bit afraid of an accident, but on consideration I thought it was pretty funny.
I suspect an angry guy was stupid enough to confront two angry guys, and got beat up for his pains. I doubt it had a thing to do with his anti-Christian views.
Are you afraid to actually ping people or do you just enjoy talking to yourself?
Well, if the evos insist that Merrick (who isn't even a scientist) is the victim of a Creationist Hate Crime, we need to support LE with all we've got to get the whole story out, and these two Creationists (white guys in ball caps with gloves in a red pickup truck!) arrested!
Just a day or two ago I was watching a couple of evos here on FR trying to figure out how to get conservative scientists to put Dems (who are presumably pro-evo) into office to spite these awful people who won't sign on to evolution dogma. If anyone wants the reference, email. I think FR is being used by leftists who think they have a way to chip away at GOP contitutency.
Since there is considerable disagreement, why don't you come out and clearly explain the meaning and intent of your statement? Then I can stop gloating over your apparent missjudgement.
************
You may be right. I've seen a number of road rage incidents, as I'm sure we all have.
Hmmmm, is Mamz actively lying about stuff she reads, or is she merely too damn thickheaded to get it? So many choices, so many choices...nope, can't decide. Go ahead and post it here in public, so we can figure out which one it is.
Beware. I don't know why this guy wants you to direct a post at him--but he'll probably use it to make a complaint.
No bet here. I think it smells of when that professor out west (Evergreen St.?) faked a hate crime not too long ago.
You forgot to put "sneering condescension" in your tagline. Your socks don't match.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.