Originally posted by Robtard
Eevn wtih a pletohra of splelnig eorrrs and gacrmatimal hcik-ups, msot psot can bee dcipeheerd and rsnpeoded two, eisaly.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Actually..no, you are missing the point. I don't mind minor spelling errors and misplaced punctuation at all and I believe I have stated that before. I will cover on this more.
Originally posted by inimalist
here is my take queeq, and let me be really honest in saying I couldn't care less who you are in real life.This isn't a nation, or a trial. Nobody went into your history and pulled up the movies you directed, nobody started talking about the awards you had won. You did.
And in the same exact way you challenged me, and I came right out with all the information you would have needed to find my phone number online and call me, people are expecting the same type of forthcoming attitude with you.
It is the elusiveness. The martyr discourse doesn't help you, since it was you who demanded everyone accept the credentials you will not verify as sufficient weight to your arguments.
Again, let me stress, I don't care who your are, your arguments speak for themselves regardless of what credentials you claim (take that however you want). However, you aren't acting like someone who was telling the truth.
And your take is wrong. Read through the thread and you will see.
A. I did only bring up the films I did when explicitly asked for
B. I did not bring up the award, DK did.
C. I was not asked anything, I was called a liar first and forehand, after that then questions were asked, well, questions...? Demands for proof, is more like it That kind of attitude doesn't really open up fellow forum members to share phone numbers, does it.
D. Elusiveness was therefore applied since DK puts words in my mouth (and other people's mouths as well, so there is a pattern that is not so much exclusive for me), twists posts and intentionally alters quotations to make me look bad
E. What kind of 'acting' would you expect after such an uncalled for treatment?
Originally posted by queeq
And your take is wrong. Read through the thread and you will see.A. I did only bring up the films I did when explicitly asked for
B. I did not bring up the award, DK did.
C. I was not asked anything, I was called a liar first and forehand, after that then questions were asked, well, questions...? Demands for proof, is more like it That kind of attitude doesn't really open up fellow forum members to share phone numbers, does it.
D. Elusiveness was therefore applied since DK puts words in my mouth (and other people's mouths as well, so there is a pattern that is not so much exclusive for me), twists posts and intentionally alters quotations to make me look bad
E. What kind of 'acting' would you expect after such an uncalled for treatment?
Well, to begin with, a person who was lying would do everything they could to demonize their accuser. A person who was lying would claim they are being persecuted.
More specifically however, someone who isn't lying wouldn't mind repeating specific facts that show them to be truthful. There is a VERY effective way for you to have ended any form of demand (actually, I can think of 2 excellent ways for you to end the demands being made of you).
Let me give you an example to ignore. Barry Bonds vs Roger Clemens. Both have been accused of taking performance enhancing substances. When Bonds was accused, he lied through his teeth, he denied, he blamed his accusers of racism. The way he behaved made him look like he was guilty. Clemens, on the other hand, has marched up to congress and demanded they take his DNA. He has filed counter-suits for defamation of character.
Now, clearly the actions subsequent to any accusations are not indicative of guilt. But honestly man, less Bonds, more Clemens. If you really aren't lying, why not make it so abundantly clear that DK has to eat his foot?
For instance, as you claim to be a director and thus your name is in the public domain ANYWAYS. have you told anyone your name so that they can independently check what you are saying? Do you not see what that type of evasivenesses looks like?
You seem to forget that DK has totally ruined any form of trust where I would publicly post private information? When someone start accusing you of being a liar, that you unjustly claim to study any form of science, that you'd need to post your application forms, ID cards, test results etc... how would you feel? Didn't I just believe you when you told me about your field? How would you have felt if accused you of boasting and lying and then go off in other threads telling everyone you're such a big boaster, the-big-science-man-where-are-your publications? Would you feel inclined to post any info?
Well I don't. Call it evasiveness or whatever. But that kind of treatment is just rather demented.
Originally posted by queeq
You seem to forget that DK has totally ruined any form of trust where I would publicly post private information? When someone start accusing you of being a liar, that you unjustly claim to study any form of science, that you'd need to post your application forms, ID cards, test results etc... how would you feel? Didn't I just believe you when you told me about your field? How would you have felt if accused you of boasting and lying and then go off in other threads telling everyone you're such a big boaster, the-big-science-man-where-are-your publications? Would you feel inclined to post any info?
Well I don't. Call it evasiveness or whatever. But that kind of treatment is just rather demented.
You mean to say that I ruined any measure of trust you had for the thousands of people on KMC?
Wow.
Originally posted by dadudemon
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!! The last time I checked, being arrogant was a bad thing. You have a weird way of thinking.
Yeah, that's why I was being sarcastic.
Originally posted by dadudemon
You are not allowed to use big words unless you know how to spell them. 🙂Also try to capitalize your proper nouns.
Also.......FAIL.
This is all you've got left, isn't it? You want to talk about grammar now?
Originally posted by dadudemon
agnostic:One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic
The world does not change their definitions simply because you want to feel unique.
Are you dense? I said I was not an agnostic, much less does your definition explain my feelings on teh matter. Essentially, I know what god isn't. And what he isn't is a cohesive entity. I believe I can know about god, but not that he can know about me, nor does he want to, because he doesn't have such flawed human concepts. I have never, not once, met an agnostic that didn't believe they knew something about god.
Originally posted by dadudemon
You used several big words and you spelled them correctly. Why did you try to do better with this paragraph and look like a moron with the others?
Again, you are focusing on my grammar? LAME! Even Queeq never got desperate enough to pull out that one.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, that entire paragraph is complete shit. You are placing ideas, words, and intentions upon me. I have already told you why I said I believe Queeq and you simply are refusing to listen to reason. I know several small children who hold their ears and stomp their feet..believe me, it is nothing new that you are doing.
That's a nice insult, but you'll have to do better.
Why is it complete shit? Because all I've heard you do in this thread is inject your own religion and defend Queeq, despite him not having proven anything to you. I have heard no reason in this thread. If me thinking your religion is like an STD bothers you, that's just too bad. It's just unfortunate we can't get it to go away with anitbiotics. I don't want herpes, but not wanting to get it doesn't mean I think we should do away with everyone who has it.
Originally posted by queeq
No...you are just so painfully stupid that you fail to acknowledge those comments. I can't believe your memory is so shitty that you forgot something from just a day ago. You went to private school: stop with the spelling errors or don't use those big words and start using proper capitalization more often or don't do it at all.
So, there ARE footnotes to hearing the voice of god. It doesn't come in the form of a voice, it comes in the form of suddenly "getting it". And in your case, it's the mormon voice of god.
Still have nothing to say, so you're attacking grammatical mistakes. That's really sound support for your position in this thread.
Originally posted by queeq
How original of you...troll.
I don't think the term troll applies to anyone in this thread. But, good on you for being the first one desperate enough to bring up the term. Cheers!
Originally posted by queeq
No..that is a stupid cop out on your part. In an academic debate, don't be a dumbass. That's pretty simple.
Still focusing on grammar. I guess that means you have nothing of substance left to say. And there's nothing academic about this "debate".
Originally posted by queeq
Seriously, in the PM, he tried to convince me that he had something to do with the making of the original Die Hard!!!! 😆
I'm not sure I know how you expect me to respond to that.
Originally posted by queeq
Oh man...you were right...Queeq was such a liar. 😐
You're "preaching to the choir".
Originally posted by queeq
And your take is wrong. Read through the thread and you will see.A. I did only bring up the films I did when explicitly asked for
B. I did not bring up the award, DK did.
C. I was not asked anything, I was called a liar first and forehand, after that then questions were asked, well, questions...? Demands for proof, is more like it That kind of attitude doesn't really open up fellow forum members to share phone numbers, does it.
D. Elusiveness was therefore applied since DK puts words in my mouth (and other people's mouths as well, so there is a pattern that is not so much exclusive for me), twists posts and intentionally alters quotations to make me look bad
E. What kind of 'acting' would you expect after such an uncalled for treatment?
A. You brought them up as a matter of lending gravity to your argument. After you claimed them, myself and others asked that substantiate the claim. You have yet to do so.
B. Yes, I did bring up the award.
C.You were asked to validate your claims. When you refused, I accused you of being a liar, which you still seem to be.
D. I accused you of making things up, because you used lies to validate your perspective on teh thread. I have never altered your quotes, EVER. I don't have to, they're damning enough on their own.
E. You have gone from being an expert, award winning documentary film maker to claiming this thread is about history, not about religion to refusing to post a picture from your various and prestigious adventures around the middle east to suddenly crying "Victim!". You want to tell me that I have ruined your trust on these forums? (something I couldn't actually do on my own) You're the one who makes grand claims and then doesn't have any way to back them up. And now you're "insulted". 🙁 Let me get you a tissue.
Originally posted by Devil King
Yeah, that's why I was being sarcastic.
Yeah, that's bull shit. Do you even know what you are talking about?
Originally posted by Devil King
This is all you've got left, isn't it? You want to talk about grammar now?
LOL! I am not talking about grammar nor am I talking about punctuation. (And just in case you try to pull a Bardock42...I know you didn't mention punctuation. I am just covering my bases.)
Originally posted by Devil King
Are you dense? I said I was not an agnostic, much less does your definition explain my feelings on teh matter. Essentially, I know what god isn't. And what he isn't is a cohesive entity. I believe I can know about god, but not that he can know about me, nor does he want to, because he doesn't have such flawed human concepts. I have never, not once, met an agnostic that didn't believe they knew something about god.
What are you dense? Do you even know how to read? Again, you don't want to fall under a label because you want to be special. Sorry sweety, you aren't special.
Originally posted by Devil King
Again, you are focusing on my grammar? LAME! Even Queeq never got desperate enough to pull out that one.
Holy shit. Even after I told you specifically what I was talking about, you still call it "grammar". LAME! Even douche bags would have enough logic to not make that blunder. FAIL! LAME! 😆
Originally posted by Devil King
That's a nice insult, but you'll have to do better.
FAIL! LAME!
Originally posted by Devil King
Why is it complete shit? Because all I've heard you do in this thread is inject your own religion and defend Queeq, despite him not having proven anything to you. I have heard no reason in this thread. If me thinking your religion is like an STD bothers you, that's just too bad. It's just unfortunate we can't get it to go away with anitbiotics. I don't want herpes, but not wanting to get it doesn't mean I think we should do away with everyone who has it.
That's funny, because all I've heard you do is inject your own ideas about my religion and antagonize both Queeq and I despite you not proving anything other than you literally not having a life beyond teh mess age berds. If you don't like being called agnostic, that's just too bad. It's just unfortunate that we can't get rid of your butt lice. I don't want your shitty butt lice but not wanting to get it doesn't mean I think we should shave your butt and blow torch the danglers.
Originally posted by Devil King
So, there [b]ARE footnotes to hearing the voice of god. It doesn't come in the form of a voice, it comes in the form of suddenly "getting it". And in your case, it's the mormon voice of god.[/B]
What the hell is wrong with you? Where are you pulling this shit from? Why do you do this all the time? How can you be taken seriously when you do this kind of shit all the time? You can't make up points and expect to be taken seriously and then addressed.
Originally posted by Devil King
Still have nothing to say, so you're attacking grammatical mistakes. That's really sound support for your position in this thread.
"Holy shit. Even after I told you specifically what I was talking about, you still call it 'grammar'. LAME! Even douche bags would have enough logic to not make that blunder. FAIL! LAME! 😆"
My position...Do you know what my position is? Do you know what we were originally talking about?
Originally posted by Devil King
I don't think the term troll applies to anyone in this thread. But, good on you for being the first one desperate enough to bring up the term. Cheers!Still focusing on grammar. I guess that means you have nothing of substance left to say. And there's nothing academic about this "debate".
Actually, I kept things civil but you thought it necessary to start insulting me and you would belittle the things I would post. (Here you go Robtard.) So I decided to be a douche just like you so I insulted back. Also, instead of insulting things you directly said, I decided to insult your intellect like you have Queeq and myself. (specifically, your worthless pieces of shit posts.) I literally was playing your game with a slight spin. I think it is very lame to nit pick someone's post and that is why I don't do it. (Unless it is Bardock42...he is the master of nitpicking so I can't resist.) You personally insult people. There is no need to do that. You could have easily kept things civil and not made up things left and right with me. Did you notice that at the beginning, I had a slight respect for you in my posts?
Originally posted by Devil King
I'm not sure I know how you expect me to respond to that.You're "preaching to the choir".
Actually, was sarcasm and an inside joke between Queeq and I. This is an example of sarcasm that you have to hear spoken to get.
I expected you to respond to it by saying something like, "You idiot, I told you he was a liar but you didn't listen to me. You were wrong with your "magic mind" that you said could tell if someone was lying or not."
Or something like that.
I wrote you some poetry, handsome man:
Roses are red, violets are blue
Shut the hell up, my Church is true.
Mainstream archaeologists and biblical scholars generally hold that The Bible is an imaginative fiction, and all stories within it are of a metaphorical character. None of the early stories are held to have a solid historical basis, and only some of the later stories possess at most only a few tiny fragments of genuine historical memory—which by their definition are only those points which are supported by archaeological discoveries. In this view, all of the stories about the biblical patriarchs are fictional, and the patriarchs never existed. Further, mainstream archaeologists and biblical scholars hold that the twelve tribes of Israel never existed, King David and King Saul never existed, and that the united kingdom of Israel, which The Bible says that David and Solomon ruled, never existed.
Even among Biblical Maximalists who hold that the stories of The Bible describe actual historical events; some believe that the people mentioned in The Bible are historical figures, but that the stories about them are not historically accurate—not even in broad strokes; while others believe that the people mentioned in The Bible are fictional creations with only the slightest relation to any real historical persons in the distant past.
In short, The Bible is a collective work of narrative fiction that elaborates upon the lives of a combination of fictional and historical characters to emphasize, explain, and embody the cosmological and moral beliefs of Bronze-Age Mediterranean and Semitic peoples that resulted from thousands of years of cultural syncretism, i.e. historical fiction.
[/end thread]
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Mainstream archaeologists and biblical scholars generally hold that The Bible is an imaginative fiction, and all stories within it are of a metaphorical character. None of the early stories are held to have a solid historical basis, and only some of the later stories possess at most only a few tiny fragments of genuine historical memory—which by their definition are only those points which are supported by archaeological discoveries. In this view, all of the stories about the biblical patriarchs are fictional, and the patriarchs never existed. Further, mainstream archaeologists and biblical scholars hold that the twelve tribes of Israel never existed, King David and King Saul never existed, and that the united kingdom of Israel, which The Bible says that David and Solomon ruled, never existed.Even among Biblical Maximalists who hold that the stories of The Bible describe actual historical events; some believe that the people mentioned in The Bible are historical figures, but that the stories about them are not historically accurate—not even in broad strokes; while others believe that the people mentioned in The Bible are fictional creations with only the slightest relation to any real historical persons in the distant past.
In short, The Bible is a collective work of narrative fiction that elaborates upon the lives of a combination of fictional and historical characters to emphasize, explain, and embody the cosmological and moral beliefs of Bronze-Age Mediterranean and Semitic peoples that resulted from thousands of years of cultural syncretism, i.e. historical fiction.
[/end thread]
aaaaaannnnnddddd THIS is why I love you. 😮
Originally posted by dadudemon
Yeah, that's bull shit. Do you even know what you are talking about?
In regards to this specific question? Yeah, you claiming you were arrogant. In regards to the thread, it has something to do with all this:
Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't understand why Devil King doubts. On a message board, you can tell if someone is lying about their credentials or not
This is where you injected yourself into the conversation. All your other posts were simple interaction, before this point. I asked how you were so good at telling he was being truthful; to which you replied by asking how I knew he was lying.
Well, I can assume it because he hasn't backed it up, which he could easily do, but he is saying I have inspired him not to trust anyone and you're saying he seems to know what he's talking about, so it must be true. (In turn, ignoring everything I have said about it up to this point in teh argument.)
Originally posted by dadudemon
I learned something from his reply to me....that he knows what he is talking about. That post and a several others have lead me to believe that he is who is says he is. There is still the possibility of him just looking that information up and trying to pass it off as something he just knows off the top of his head because he wants to portray that he is "legit". If it turns out that he is lying, I will admit that my assessment of him is wrong and apologize to you. It wouldn't be the first time I was wrong and it won't be the last, however I don't think I am wrong about this.
Originally posted by dadudemon
4. You are playing this "card" because you don't want to portray that you have "weakened in your resolve" about his lying about his credentials. It's okay, I have an ego to.
originally posted by Devil KingI haven't weakened in any resolve.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I never said you "weakened in any resolve".
Originally posted by dadudemon
I never claimed to be "good at it". Why are you putting words into my mouth? Again, why do I get so much crap for mistakes like that?
Then why imply that it is so easy and obvious? Remember, "I don't know why DK doesn't believe him."?
Originally posted by dadudemon
This "creationist" idea that you have come up with has already been addressed...but why the hell are you making up stuff about people and treating it as though it were truth? It doesn't make in anymore true if you pretend it was right.
Would Queeq like to say once and for all that he is NOT a subscriber to the bible being the divine word of god? He can settle it, and I'll have to eat my words. And if he believes in the god of the bible, he is a creationist. And like I said, if a person wants to pretend that Intelligent Design isn't creationist propoganda, he's full of shit.
But, he, again, won't address it; opting for crying abut how I made him distrustful of the forums.
But, if you believe that he directed those films, then maybe you should sit down and watch them, or look them up. Each and every one of them are presented as clearly furthering the various concepts set forth by the bible. One addresses the Shroud of Turin being a legitimate relic, proving the divinity of Jesus; the next is literally called A Biblical Quest; and the third is about Goliath and David.
So when I claimed that you were defending him because you agree with him abou the existence of god, I based it off of this"
Originally posted by dadudemon
Actually, I am pretty damned* close to being an atheist but I can't help but believe in God.We start to differ when it actually comes down to Gods involvement in the books and how they are to be interpreted in relation to the presence of God. (I tried to avoid ambiguous pronoun reference there and I know you know what I mean...but I apologize if it was confusing.)
When I asked you why you were a mormon if you were sooo close to being an atheist, you said:
Originally posted by dadudemon
For many many reasons. I asked Him if this religion was really the restored gospel and He gave me a resounding "Yes".
That's not on the verge of atheism, neither is it not implying you sit around having conversations with a mythical super being that lives in the sky. (Which, correct me if I'm worng, but you said you didn't say you'd said)
Originally posted by dadudemon
aaaaaannnnnddddd THIS is why I love you. 😮
But, we can all agree that the Book of Mormon is NOT addressed in his statement. Because:
Originally posted by dadudemon
I asked Him if this religion was really the restored gospel and He gave me a resounding "Yes".
Or am I putting words in your mouth by assuming you mean "God" when you say "He' or "Him", and that the "restored gospel" is a reference to the Book of Mormon?
Originally posted by queeq
You seem to forget that DK has totally ruined any form of trust where I would publicly post private information? When someone start accusing you of being a liar, that you unjustly claim to study any form of science, that you'd need to post your application forms, ID cards, test results etc... how would you feel? Didn't I just believe you when you told me about your field? How would you have felt if accused you of boasting and lying and then go off in other threads telling everyone you're such a big boaster, the-big-science-man-where-are-your publications? Would you feel inclined to post any info?
Well I don't. Call it evasiveness or whatever. But that kind of treatment is just rather demented.
you are absolutely correct. While I may have posted a link to the website that has my picture and what have you, ultimately you may have demanded more personal information than I was willing to give.
In that situation I would have just left the thread, or ignored your posts (with the ignore function). If you are saying you are in this situation, then you are choosing to actively participate in some kind of scenario where you are feeling persecuted.
I dunno, I thought about staying out of this one, but from personal KMC experience, it seems Devil King likes to antagonize people and call them out on "being fake" as if any of us have to prove anything to him.
He also seems like an extremely angry person. Could just be a misunderstanding on my part.
DK...., why don't you chill out ?
Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I dunno, I thought about staying out of this one, but from personal KMC experience, it seems Devil King likes to antagonize people and call them out on "being fake" as if any of us have to prove anything to him.He also seems like an extremely angry person. Could just be a misunderstanding on my part.
DK...., why don't you chill out ?
Listen, if we were having a discussion about sex and I stood on the ground that "gay sex is harmful and shouldn't be practiced"; then I claimed "I am a doctor, a sex therapist and I have written several highly regarded books on that matters or sex" as backup to my claim, you would ask me to prove these claims. Correct?
Now, if my subsequent responses were dodgy and playing the victim, you would call me a bullshitter.
Originally posted by Robtard
Listen, if we were having a discussion about sex and I stood on the ground that "gay sex is harmful and shouldn't be practiced"; then I claimed "I am a doctor, a sex therapist and I have written several highly regarded books on that matters or sex" as backup to my claim, you would ask me to prove these claims. Correct?Now, if my subsequent responses were dodgy and playing the victim, you would call me a bullshitter.
Please don't start. That's not what's happening here.
DK makes a habit of directly antagonizing people. You can't deny that, and if you do, then you're blind. He can easily make his same points, without constantly insulting everyone he debates with. He makes it into a personal issue, and then when you comment on how personal and serious he makes the issue to be, he denies it.
He has no place calling anyone disrespectful or inappropriate when his own attitude on this forum blows.
Originally posted by SpearofDestinynow ladies please no cat fights on the internets
Please don't start. That's not what's happening here.DK makes a habit of directly antagonizing people. You can't deny that, and if you do, then you're blind. He can easily make his same points, without constantly insulting everyone he debates with. He makes it into a personal issue, and then when you comment on how personal and serious he makes the issue to be, he denies it.
He has no place calling anyone disrespectful or inappropriate when his own attitude on this forum blows.