[presidio9]

Depends on the context. For the purposes of a thread on the homosexual subculture, the first two photos are appropriate. For the purposes of mocking David Hasselhoff's delusions of grandeur, the third one is right on the money. There's a difference between responding to a thread on subject and seeking out an audience for your delusions. Not only have I asked this person not to accost me with his bizarre theological views in the past, but also, his particular single track is not even germane to this article. If Jesus were green, he's still be the Son of God.

Short answer: I shall do my best not to offend your delicate sensitivities sir. But I make no promises.

[newgeezer]

Uh-huh. Just wondered. And, I got what I expected. Whenever I someone challenges another to be a "good Christian," it makes me wonder how he measures up to his own definition of "good."

Regardless, in the future, maybe the "ignore-him-and-he-will-go-away" approach would work better. (He didn't hijack the thread, either, as I suspect you might have anticipated. Most if not all of what cluttered your thread -- this post included -- would've been avoided if you'd simply practiced some Christ-like meekness and let it slide. No offense, mind you. I'm not being judgmental. Just trying to help, for what it's worth. I don't care whether you take it or leave it.)

Because, knowing him as I do, it's extremely unlikely that he even noticed your FR name when he posted the question about Jesus. (I thought it was a relevant question, by the way.) Even if he did notice your name, it didn't remind him of your past exchanges. That's just the way he is with names.

Therefore, before you posted your reply, I'm confident he wasn't looking to offend what are obviously your "delicate sensitivities, sir."