How same-sex marriage threatens liberty

WorldNetDaily ^ | April 24, 2004

[AntiGuv]

That statement was not meant to invite response, particularly from you to whom it was not addressed.

[scripter]

Then I suggest you stop posting on a public forum.

[tessalu]

If the USA decides upon same-sex marriage, we will not be a
country worth saving.

[AntiGuv]

I have no problem with anyone responding to me; it is you who has expressed that problem and so you should definitely consider taking your own advice.

I just find it amusing that you respond to a comment that wasn't addressed to you as if it were meant to draw a response or as if I cared whether you wish to respond.

If you don't want to respond to me, here's a clue: don't.

[scripter]

Understood. But we can't give up - homosexuals need help and too many folks are willing to let them continue living a very destructive lifestyle. We have ex-homosexuals on FR and I know they're glad folks helped them get out of the homosexual lifestyle.

[scripter]

Your attempt to put this on me his pathetic. You first posted a response to me and then made some additional comments in the thread. You wrote me again but after reading your comments to little jeremiah, your worldview was made obvious, it spoke volumes. If you don't like folks responding to your public comments, don't make public comments. It's really that simple.

[AntiGuv]

If you don't like folks responding to your public comments, don't make public comments.

I already said I don't have any problem with people responding to my comments. It is you who is once again whining about my responding to you. LOL!

It's really that simple.

Yep. Like I said, if you don't want to respond to me then by all means stop doing it. As for me, I have no problem either responding to or receiving responses from you. I also haven't the slightest problem with you not responding to me. If I explicitly want a response, you will see a question mark; until then, you need not respond to me in order to tell me how much you don't want to respond to me.. =)

PS. Keep in mind that my first reply to the thread was a response to the article, definitely not to you. You then chose to respond to me. If you don't want people to respond to articles you post, I would recommend you start a personal blog.

[scripter]

And that post speaks volumes as well as you try to hide in ambiguity. Fortunately I still don't want to bang my head against a wall, but I have to thank you for two things:

1. bumping the thread
2. helping to put me to sleep

Homosexuality can be cured, we just need to get the word out.

[AntiGuv]

Ambiguity, hell. Just because you say it doesn't make it so. My posts are clear as day.

You are failing most miserably at your objective of not responding to me.. :p

[scripter]

What's as plain as day is your worldview, demonstrated in your post 11.

Saying I'm not interested in responding to you is false, demonstrating your ambiguity; it's the bait you hung out in post 11 that speaks volumes in regards to your worldview, and that's what you seemed to have missed. I thanked you for your post 11 as responding to your post 13, which I was about to do, would have proved futile.

You made a statement on a public forum and then tried to backpeddle in post 21, stating it "was not meant to invite response". You hung yourself with that statement. Perhaps you should heed your own words as here you responded to MegaSilver who wasn't posting to you. Unless, of course, you think you're special and have some unique privilege of making statements on public forums without others making comments to what you say on public forums.

Again, if you don't want responses to statements made on a public forum, don't make statements on a public forum.

[AntiGuv]

Again, I have no problem with anyone responding to me. This is the third or fourth time I'm reiterating that. Are you seriously this dimwitted? Let me say it again:

I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH ANYONE RESPONDING TO ANY POST OF MINE!

Do you understand now?

Saying I'm not interested in responding to you is false...

You said it; not I. If it was a lie then you should stop lying.

[AntiGuv]

Ahem..

Thou shalt not bear false witness.. - Exodus 20:16

[scripter]

That's just backpeddling on top of backpeddling. In post 21 when you first started your backpeddling you said: "That statement was not meant to invite response, but then you realized your error and have been backpeddling on top of your backpeddling ever since.

You are inconsistent.

[AntiGuv]

"That statement was not meant to invite response" does not mean I have any problem with anyone responding to me. It means that I don't give a damn whether or not you respond to me and so you need not inform me that you don't want to respond to me especially when I did not ask that you respond to me.

[scripter]

You said it; not I. If it was a lie then you should stop lying.

That's your problem, you think I said something I didn't say. Otherwise, quote what I said and provide a post number. The problem is, you can't.

[AntiGuv]

That's your problem, you think I said something I didn't say.

Liar

[scripter]

"That statement was not meant to invite response" does not mean I have any problem with anyone responding to me. It means that I don't give a damn whether or not you respond to me

Here's the full quote:

That statement was not meant to invite response, particularly from you to whom it was not addressed.

That doesn't say you "don't give a damn", not even close.

[AntiGuv]

Liar

[scripter]

Liar

Here's the full post that you linked to:

Your worldview is made obvious by the statements you make, statements I find ignorant, baiting and a waste of time to respond to. If I want to bang my head against a wall I'll let you know.

That says taking the bait in your post 11 would be a waste of time and in doing so it would be like banging my head against a wall. I never said I wasn't interested in responding to you, just taking the bait in post 11 would be like banging my head against a wall. You tried to turn this around and make it appear as if I didn't want to post to you at all.

[hunter112]

We'll just have to disagree that the U.S. is slipping in the same direction.

Sorry, its just that I see Canada trotted out all the time, and I just believe that freedom means more to people here.

PC has gone way farther in Canada than it ever would here, because the Canadian people and their government confuse politeness with what is required by law. We have a long tradition here of being able to risk offending others with your political expressions, while realizing that differing political opinions are what strenghthen us, not what makes us weaker.