Let's go to the instant replay Alex

[Mac1958]

And once again, the PC Police try to (directly or indirectly) equate modern-day Islam with modern-day Christianity in a transparent attempt to spin for the PC-protected religion. Somehow they think no one will notice..

Well that is what you took from it.I merely posted a link to a study. You drew your own conclusions. And those conclusions are quite telling, aren't they.

Yep!

I do know the PC Police!


.

Is there something in the study that you refute? Perhaps you have conducted your own study. Or are you just in need to defend your religion?

I posted no qualifier or preference either way. I just happened on that article and was surprised by the outcome. But it is good to know truth rather than hearsay.

Since I'm a comfy agnostic I don't have a religion to defend.

And I made my point in my first post. This type of thread pops up quite often, and I know why.

Fortunately I don't require your confirmation.

Was there a point coming eventually? Is it in some kind of invisible font?

Yes, it's in invisible font.
.

 

[Pogo]

Well that is what you took from it.I merely posted a link to a study. You drew your own conclusions. And those conclusions are quite telling, aren't they.

Yep!

I do know the PC Police!


.

Is there something in the study that you refute? Perhaps you have conducted your own study. Or are you just in need to defend your religion?

I posted no qualifier or preference either way. I just happened on that article and was surprised by the outcome. But it is good to know truth rather than hearsay.

Since I'm a comfy agnostic I don't have a religion to defend.

And I made my point in my first post. This type of thread pops up quite often, and I know why.

Fortunately I don't require your confirmation.

Was there a point coming eventually? Is it in some kind of invisible font?

Yes, it's in invisible font.
.

Must be, since the OP and its article makes no such contemporary comparisons at all. It's entirely about ancient texts.

See --- the idea is you have to actually read it. When you don't bother, you end up where you just did.

 

[Mac1958]

Yep!

I do know the PC Police!


.

Is there something in the study that you refute? Perhaps you have conducted your own study. Or are you just in need to defend your religion?

I posted no qualifier or preference either way. I just happened on that article and was surprised by the outcome. But it is good to know truth rather than hearsay.

Since I'm a comfy agnostic I don't have a religion to defend.

And I made my point in my first post. This type of thread pops up quite often, and I know why.

Fortunately I don't require your confirmation.

Was there a point coming eventually? Is it in some kind of invisible font?

Yes, it's in invisible font.
.

Must be, since the OP and its article makes no such contemporary comparisons at all.

See --- the idea is you have to actually read it. When you don't bother, you end up where you just did.

I'm not quite sure how you got the impression your opinion is important to me.

And since I haven't bothered to read the prior posts, we're just wasting bandwidth here.
.

 

[Pogo]

Is there something in the study that you refute? Perhaps you have conducted your own study. Or are you just in need to defend your religion?

I posted no qualifier or preference either way. I just happened on that article and was surprised by the outcome. But it is good to know truth rather than hearsay.

Since I'm a comfy agnostic I don't have a religion to defend.

And I made my point in my first post. This type of thread pops up quite often, and I know why.

Fortunately I don't require your confirmation.

Was there a point coming eventually? Is it in some kind of invisible font?

Yes, it's in invisible font.
.

Must be, since the OP and its article makes no such contemporary comparisons at all.

See --- the idea is you have to actually read it. When you don't bother, you end up where you just did.

I'm not quite sure how you got the impression your opinion is important to me.

And since I haven't bothered to read the prior posts, we're just wasting bandwidth here.
.

Once again reading content that does not exist huh?

I made no evaluation of what my opinion means to you. I didn't even express one. I simply noted that your post was a complete non sequitur. And there's nothing you can do about that. Except maybe learn to read.

 

[Mac1958]

Since I'm a comfy agnostic I don't have a religion to defend.

And I made my point in my first post. This type of thread pops up quite often, and I know why.

Fortunately I don't require your confirmation.

Was there a point coming eventually? Is it in some kind of invisible font?

Yes, it's in invisible font.
.

Must be, since the OP and its article makes no such contemporary comparisons at all.

See --- the idea is you have to actually read it. When you don't bother, you end up where you just did.

I'm not quite sure how you got the impression your opinion is important to me.

And since I haven't bothered to read the prior posts, we're just wasting bandwidth here.
.

Once again reading content that does not exist huh?

I made no evaluation of what my opinion means to you. I didn't even express one. I simply noted that your post was a complete non sequitur. And there's nothing you can do about that. Except maybe learn to read.

Well, this really has been a stimulating conversation.
.

 

[Pogo]

Was there a point coming eventually? Is it in some kind of invisible font?

Yes, it's in invisible font.
.

Must be, since the OP and its article makes no such contemporary comparisons at all.

See --- the idea is you have to actually read it. When you don't bother, you end up where you just did.

I'm not quite sure how you got the impression your opinion is important to me.

And since I haven't bothered to read the prior posts, we're just wasting bandwidth here.
.

Once again reading content that does not exist huh?

I made no evaluation of what my opinion means to you. I didn't even express one. I simply noted that your post was a complete non sequitur. And there's nothing you can do about that. Except maybe learn to read.

Well, this really has been a stimulating conversation.

Apparently so, since you keep responding.
-- all the while oblivious to the fact that it's your move -- not mine.

Literacy: a lost art.

 

[Mac1958]

Yes, it's in invisible font.
.

Must be, since the OP and its article makes no such contemporary comparisons at all.

See --- the idea is you have to actually read it. When you don't bother, you end up where you just did.

I'm not quite sure how you got the impression your opinion is important to me.

And since I haven't bothered to read the prior posts, we're just wasting bandwidth here.
.

Once again reading content that does not exist huh?

I made no evaluation of what my opinion means to you. I didn't even express one. I simply noted that your post was a complete non sequitur. And there's nothing you can do about that. Except maybe learn to read.

Well, this really has been a stimulating conversation.

Apparently so, since you keep responding.
-- all the while oblivious to the fact that it's your move -- not mine.

Literacy: a lost art.

My move to what?

Am I supposed to be engaged here?

You clearly don't like something I said somewhere, at some point, about something.

I'm okay with that.

So I'll bow out now, thanks again for such an interesting conversation, the one you are having with yourself.
.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Must be, since the OP and its article makes no such contemporary comparisons at all.

See --- the idea is you have to actually read it. When you don't bother, you end up where you just did.

I'm not quite sure how you got the impression your opinion is important to me.

And since I haven't bothered to read the prior posts, we're just wasting bandwidth here.
.

Once again reading content that does not exist huh?

I made no evaluation of what my opinion means to you. I didn't even express one. I simply noted that your post was a complete non sequitur. And there's nothing you can do about that. Except maybe learn to read.

Well, this really has been a stimulating conversation.

Apparently so, since you keep responding.
-- all the while oblivious to the fact that it's your move -- not mine.

Literacy: a lost art.

My move to what?

Am I supposed to be engaged here?

You clearly don't like something I said somewhere, at some point, about something.

I'm okay with that.

So I'll bow out now, thanks again for such an interesting conversation, the one you are having with yourself.
.

You have nothing to add to a conservation, noted.

Perfect reason for 'ignore'.

 

[Mac1958]

I'm not quite sure how you got the impression your opinion is important to me.

And since I haven't bothered to read the prior posts, we're just wasting bandwidth here.
.

Once again reading content that does not exist huh?

I made no evaluation of what my opinion means to you. I didn't even express one. I simply noted that your post was a complete non sequitur. And there's nothing you can do about that. Except maybe learn to read.

Well, this really has been a stimulating conversation.

Apparently so, since you keep responding.
-- all the while oblivious to the fact that it's your move -- not mine.

Literacy: a lost art.

My move to what?

Am I supposed to be engaged here?

You clearly don't like something I said somewhere, at some point, about something.

I'm okay with that.

So I'll bow out now, thanks again for such an interesting conversation, the one you are having with yourself.
.

You have nothing to add to a conservation, noted.

Perfect reason for 'ignore'.

Thank you!
.