Log In
Create Account
SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ
Login
Create Account
Search
Dr. S. Talk
TT/ST Wiki
How Well Do You Know ...
RSS Feed
Hosting by DigitalOcean
Support ST on Ko-Fi
Links Only
50 Results
100 Results
250 Results
500 Results
1000 Results
5000 Results
2 Weeks
2 Months
6 Months
1 Year
2 Years
5 Years
All Time
Live
Down to Post
Backboards:
Live
________________
1: Dec 4, 02:38
2: Dec 3, 14:19
3: Dec 3, 11:17
4: Dec 3, 07:33
5: Dec 2, 17:22
6: Dec 2, 11:48
7: Dec 2, 08:21
8: Dec 1, 17:33
9: Dec 1, 11:23
10: Nov 30, 15:54
11: Nov 30, 09:41
12: Nov 29, 16:44
13: Nov 29, 08:01
14: Nov 28, 16:19
15: Nov 28, 09:42
16: Nov 27, 18:07
17: Nov 27, 12:04
18: Nov 27, 08:26
19: Nov 26, 18:06
20: Nov 26, 12:05
Posts: 158
In response to
"
This isn't an eye for an eye. *Neither* is antagonistic imo. I ignore both.
"
by
musubi
horseshit. -- nm
Posted by
TFox
Sep 9 '10, 10:09
(No message)
Responses:
[deleted]
27
I'm saying at least one side, if not both, are clearly being antagonistic. -- nm
-
TFox
Sep 9, 10:13
25
I disagree. Imo, the signs linked carry the same level of proselytizing as the typical scriputure-quoting religious billboard.
-
musubi
Sep 9, 10:16
14
it was factually horseshit. "evolve beyond belief" is plainly antagonistic on its face. -- nm
-
TFox
Sep 9, 10:17
13
Why is that any more antogonistic than "Christ is the ONLY way" or some such?
-
musubi
Sep 9, 10:21
7
One is expressing a personally held belief, the other is expressing that someone elses personally held belief makes them un-evolved i.e. stupid
-
Stephen
Sep 9, 10:36
its not. they are both antagonistic to some degree. one could argue whether they are *intended* to be so...
-
TFox
Sep 9, 10:23
4
So, it's arguable, and not "factually horsesh**", eh? I completely disagree with your 100% number in the IM.
-
musubi
Sep 9, 10:26
3
the intent is arguable. the douchiness, decidedly not. -- nm
-
TFox
Sep 9, 10:27
2
Really? You consider a Christian who politely tells me that Christ is the only path to salvation is being a douche? (nm)
-
musubi
Sep 9, 10:29
1
I would describe it as being overbearing, and it would make me uncomfortable. -- nm
-
Beryllium
Sep 9, 10:31
I consider them to be equally overbearing. That's my opinion. -- nm
-
Beryllium
Sep 9, 10:22
only if you presume evolution to be a value-driven process
-
znufrii
Sep 9, 10:19
4
Now this post here, is clearly antagonistic. Only meant to rile TFox. (nm)
-
musubi
Sep 9, 10:22
*smashes you in the face* -- nm
-
TFox
Sep 9, 10:19
2
I must say...
-
znufrii
Sep 9, 10:20
1
I've been consistently anti-douche in my career here. -- nm
-
TFox
Sep 9, 10:25
[deleted]
9
i never said not to let them. they can knock themselves out. just said they're douchey. -- nm
-
TFox
Sep 9, 10:16
8
[deleted]
3
they both annoy me, because they are both douchey, and perhaps the worst Christian ones are even worse...
-
TFox
Sep 9, 10:25
I find them all amusing and consider them a waste of money.
-
Strongbad
Sep 9, 10:25
1
[deleted]
/like -- nm
-
Dr.Vermin
Sep 9, 10:18
I guess I am not sure, what side is being douchey? -- nm
-
amoxy
Sep 9, 10:17
2
both sides have made douchey billboards on plenty of occasions.
-
TFox
Sep 9, 10:18
I don't know if TFox shares this opinion, but I say that both sides are. :) -- nm
-
Beryllium
Sep 9, 10:18
Needful Things 2! -- nm
-
CQ
Sep 9, 10:13
I'm not sure how I can respond to this well reasoned, articulate response.
-
musubi
Sep 9, 10:11
1
HOUSED!!!!!!!!!!!!! -- nm
-
Strongbad
Sep 9, 10:11
Post a message
top
Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.