Glad you guys enjoyed the show. However, this is my own account and I don't have any other accounts with PokerForum.ca. I joined to talk poker, not religion, but I wanted to take a stab at it.
the fact that neither of you were around when fed was here and neither of you were like "wtf? what is a fed?" makes me believe even more that you are both in fact fed.
the fact that neither of you were around when fed was here and neither of you were like "wtf? what is a fed?" makes me believe even more that you are both in fact fed.
the fact that neither of you were around when fed was here and neither of you were like "wtf? what is a fed?" makes me believe even more that you are both in fact fed.
I don't know who or what "fed" is and because I don't care I never bothered to question it.
someone wasn't around when another user was isn't much of a fact worth debating.
last year around this time someone didn't agree with my operating system choices so you or they floated around the idea that I was "haim" who also favored XP
So year one haim, next year fed. Given my connection to both people is
1). windows xp
2). wasn't around when he was
Give yourself some time to figure out the math. You probably have a .0000001% chance of being right.
What is there to get in to ? You took a .000001% chance that I was someone I'm not and you missed. Then you edited your post to cut out the nonsense a few minutes after posting it. Of course I don't care or understand "fed" it could be an object, a person, an idea, the govt .. Did you really expect me to understand what goes in your head when you say "fed".
You might want to have your head examined if you always think someone is someone else and they're a douche when it doesn't pan out. It is a bit on the delusional and paranoid side. Thanks for editing all that stuff, makes you look even worse now that you don't support your own hypothesis.
What is there to get in to ? You took a .000001% chance that I was someone I'm not and you missed. Then you edited your post to cut out the nonsense a few minutes after posting it. Of course I don't care or understand "fed" it could be an object, a person, an idea, the govt .. Did you really expect me to understand what goes in your head when you say "fed".
You might want to have your head examined if you always think someone is someone else and they're a douche when it doesn't pan out. It is a bit on the delusional and paranoid side. Thanks for editing all that stuff, makes you look even worse now that you don't support your own hypothesis.
Pump the brakes there friend.. Fed was an old user around here that trolled the forum for over a year (among some others). His MO was to come back under new aliases and play dumb for a few weeks, but then his ego would kick in and he couldn't help but furiously masturbate over how he "got" us.
Trigs is - well I can't say a respected member - but a long term member here. You're new. Call it an unfortunate misunderstanding, buy one another a beer and forget it.
What is there to get in to ? You took a .000001% chance that I was someone I'm not and you missed. Then you edited your post to cut out the nonsense a few minutes after posting it. Of course I don't care or understand "fed" it could be an object, a person, an idea, the govt .. Did you really expect me to understand what goes in your head when you say "fed".
You might want to have your head examined if you always think someone is someone else and they're a douche when it doesn't pan out. It is a bit on the delusional and paranoid side. Thanks for editing all that stuff, makes you look even worse now that you don't support your own hypothesis.
Pump the brakes there friend.. Fed was an old user around here that trolled the forum for over a year (among some others). His MO was to come back under new aliases and play dumb for a few weeks, but then his ego would kick in and he couldn't help but furiously masturbate over how he "got" us.
Mark
Sorry to hear that but that isn't my style. I already concluded last year that there was no itelligent life in this forum so I wouldn't bother to prove myself or any point I make beyond what is reasonable and that would include coming back as a new user.
given that fact, posting since last year would not qualify me as a new member. I read the posts here all the time but I just don't reply much because pokerforum.ca is a largely a "forum of 3" . And when I do reply I actually try to make a point or reference unlike the other 3.
Sorry to hear that but that isn't my style. I already concluded last year that there was no itelligent life in this forum so I wouldn't bother to prove myself or any point I make beyond what is reasonable and that would include coming back as a new user.
given that fact, posting since last year would not qualify me as a new member. I read the posts here all the time but I just don't reply much because pokerforum.ca is a largely a "forum of 3" . And when I do reply I actually try to make a point or reference unlike the other 3.
Alternatively then, stick to being a cock... enjoy your stay.
Sorry to hear that but that isn't my style. I already concluded last year that there was no itelligent life in this forum so I wouldn't bother to prove myself or any point I make beyond what is reasonable and that would include coming back as a new user.
given that fact, posting since last year would not qualify me as a new member. I read the posts here all the time but I just don't reply much because pokerforum.ca is a largely a "forum of 3" . And when I do reply I actually try to make a point or reference unlike the other 3.
Remind yourself of this next time abortion/gay marriage/ stem cell research / birth control / any number of things that the religious like to poke their noses into comes up.
Remind yourself of this next time abortion/gay marriage/ stem cell research / birth control / any number of things that the religious like to poke their noses into comes up.
Mark
Except that, as those issues tend to involve the laws of this country, and those are enacted by Parliament, yes he does. As do we all.
nobody was able to step up to the plate and bat for him.
If someone stepped up to bat would you even throw a proper pitch or would you be too busy ridiculing him for his beliefs and throwing the ball at him rather than to him? To play a proper game, we need to play by a proper set of rules. I've been trying to make this point or one's like it this whole time and you've seemingly been ignoring. You say we can't get off the ground well that's because if you can't treat your "opponent" like a respectable human being with a respectable mind of their own there's nothing left to debate.
If you'd like to continue to ridicule religion and God, don't expect me to be a batter in your baseball game. If you want to toss me a fair pitch, even if it is a wicked curveball that leaves me bewildered and rattled, please do and I will try not to strike out. Just not a fan of being made to be an idiot when I know for a fact that I'm not.
So, religious folks aren't allowed to vote? How tolerant of you?
You can't be this fucking stupid. You're misinterpreting what I'm saying in order to pat yourself on the back at your cleverness.
Here's the difference...... my beliefs and the religious are not opposite. If I were opposite, I would be anti-procreation, likely having a stance where I feel "these people can breed, these people should not" - I think somewhere in history that was attempted - I want everyone to have the freedom to live their life. I want people to have options, to make decisions that they feel are the best for them, without infringing on others.
Since I know you're just aching to prove where I'm wrong about this, let me preempt your witty retort. I've discussed the guns thing in that thread (are they pretty? Don't have to work. Target shooting? Keep em at a club. etc etc etc) as to why people don't need to own guns. I'm sure you're going to have some scenario where I would be in a conundrum. That's an individual basis that *I* and my varied options would have to decide what's best, not what's best based on an ancient text with questionable status. The religious would seek to hinder my options in many moral dilemmas you could generate. I seek to maximize fact, truth, and honesty in my decisions, and that's not something religion much affords its adherents (and I will even add) IN MY OPINION to forestall a painful retort. (Seriously, don't say anything clever here, you're going to miss....)
I don't care for your input, and don't hinder my options.
I want everyone to have the freedom to live their life. I want people to have options, to make decisions that they feel are the best for them, without infringing on others.
attempted I want people to have options, to make decisions that they feel are the best for them, without infringing on others.
Mark
So, you're fine with this Hospitals decision? Because, if not, isn't that an infringement on their Rights? And that is the problem when the Rights of one person come into conflict with another. Especially when one of the groups tries to have the State enforce "their" rights over anothers.
Mostly because you're not looking for my thoughts, you're looking to trap me into something you can be happy about. And, despite my statement that I want to give people their options as much as possible, I don't feel I need to be your avenue of self-worship.
I didn't read the article, but as for my stance on assisted suicide I'm sure it's blatantly obvious where I fall.
Fun side fact, Justin Trudeau has apparently made a motion for a formal posthumous pardon of the conviction of George Klippert. I didn't know anything about him, but on CBC they told a bit. Basically was arrested under suspicion of arson, admitted to having consensual gay sex with 3 other adult men, and was classified a dangerous sex offender. Supreme court of Canada (I'm guessing with their own version of Antonin Scalia on the panel) upheld the ruling, and he was placed in "preventative detention" (i.e. lockup with no set timeline). All of this is horrendous, and lead to Tommy Douglas (go NDP!) stating the next day this was dumb as shit (paraphrasing). Within 6 weeks the "Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968-69 (Bill C-150), an omnibus bill which, among other things, decriminalized homosexual acts between consenting adults. The law passed, and homosexuality was decriminalized in Canada in 1969" by a pre-PM Pierre Trudeau, and his lovely "There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation". Glad to see the neighbors to the south are also playing catch up
Comments
Whaddaya say, trigs? You get to pick the first song, and I'll sing. Just no Cher . . . I only bust that out during Pride Week.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Nope... Stoney Creek, very unlikely feddy...
okay. case closed.
I don't know who or what "fed" is and because I don't care I never bothered to question it.
someone wasn't around when another user was isn't much of a fact worth debating.
last year around this time someone didn't agree with my operating system choices so you or they floated around the idea that I was "haim" who also favored XP
So year one haim, next year fed. Given my connection to both people is
1). windows xp
2). wasn't around when he was
Give yourself some time to figure out the math. You probably have a .0000001% chance of being right.
What is there to get in to ? You took a .000001% chance that I was someone I'm not and you missed. Then you edited your post to cut out the nonsense a few minutes after posting it. Of course I don't care or understand "fed" it could be an object, a person, an idea, the govt .. Did you really expect me to understand what goes in your head when you say "fed".
You might want to have your head examined if you always think someone is someone else and they're a douche when it doesn't pan out. It is a bit on the delusional and paranoid side. Thanks for editing all that stuff, makes you look even worse now that you don't support your own hypothesis.
Pump the brakes there friend.. Fed was an old user around here that trolled the forum for over a year (among some others). His MO was to come back under new aliases and play dumb for a few weeks, but then his ego would kick in and he couldn't help but furiously masturbate over how he "got" us.
Trigs is - well I can't say a respected member - but a long term member here. You're new. Call it an unfortunate misunderstanding, buy one another a beer and forget it.
Mark
calm blue ocean.
serenity now.
FU DrTyore!
EDIT: i will have you know that comp vouched for me once!
EDIT 2: who am i kidding? i get no respect from anyone
Sorry to hear that but that isn't my style. I already concluded last year that there was no itelligent life in this forum so I wouldn't bother to prove myself or any point I make beyond what is reasonable and that would include coming back as a new user.
given that fact, posting since last year would not qualify me as a new member. I read the posts here all the time but I just don't reply much because pokerforum.ca is a largely a "forum of 3" . And when I do reply I actually try to make a point or reference unlike the other 3.
Alternatively then, stick to being a cock... enjoy your stay.
Mark
i think i retract my former retraction. cheers.
EDIT: fuck me. you got me now. who are the three?
Fed's brother? I dunno, isn't this the poker discussion thread?
Well done. I have much to learn from you.
god damn it I declare this thread closed
PS: the co -author of the bible was attached
visitor.jpg
Not yours to declare now is it.
Prophet22
Yeah . . . who died and made you God?
Remind yourself of this next time abortion/gay marriage/ stem cell research / birth control / any number of things that the religious like to poke their noses into comes up.
Mark
Except that, as those issues tend to involve the laws of this country, and those are enacted by Parliament, yes he does. As do we all.
Nope.
Not from his jesus says point of view... nor yours.
Mark
Ottawa’s biggest palliative care hospital says it won’t offer assisted dying | Ottawa Citizen
If someone stepped up to bat would you even throw a proper pitch or would you be too busy ridiculing him for his beliefs and throwing the ball at him rather than to him? To play a proper game, we need to play by a proper set of rules. I've been trying to make this point or one's like it this whole time and you've seemingly been ignoring. You say we can't get off the ground well that's because if you can't treat your "opponent" like a respectable human being with a respectable mind of their own there's nothing left to debate.
If you'd like to continue to ridicule religion and God, don't expect me to be a batter in your baseball game. If you want to toss me a fair pitch, even if it is a wicked curveball that leaves me bewildered and rattled, please do and I will try not to strike out. Just not a fan of being made to be an idiot when I know for a fact that I'm not.
#ApologiesForStretchingTheBaseballMetaphorThinButOneNeedsToHaveHisFun
You can't be this fucking stupid. You're misinterpreting what I'm saying in order to pat yourself on the back at your cleverness.
Here's the difference...... my beliefs and the religious are not opposite. If I were opposite, I would be anti-procreation, likely having a stance where I feel "these people can breed, these people should not" - I think somewhere in history that was attempted - I want everyone to have the freedom to live their life. I want people to have options, to make decisions that they feel are the best for them, without infringing on others.
Since I know you're just aching to prove where I'm wrong about this, let me preempt your witty retort. I've discussed the guns thing in that thread (are they pretty? Don't have to work. Target shooting? Keep em at a club. etc etc etc) as to why people don't need to own guns. I'm sure you're going to have some scenario where I would be in a conundrum. That's an individual basis that *I* and my varied options would have to decide what's best, not what's best based on an ancient text with questionable status. The religious would seek to hinder my options in many moral dilemmas you could generate. I seek to maximize fact, truth, and honesty in my decisions, and that's not something religion much affords its adherents (and I will even add) IN MY OPINION to forestall a painful retort. (Seriously, don't say anything clever here, you're going to miss....)
I don't care for your input, and don't hinder my options.
Mark
Look, Mark and I are in perfect agreement!
So, you're fine with this Hospitals decision? Because, if not, isn't that an infringement on their Rights? And that is the problem when the Rights of one person come into conflict with another. Especially when one of the groups tries to have the State enforce "their" rights over anothers.
Mostly because you're not looking for my thoughts, you're looking to trap me into something you can be happy about. And, despite my statement that I want to give people their options as much as possible, I don't feel I need to be your avenue of self-worship.
I didn't read the article, but as for my stance on assisted suicide I'm sure it's blatantly obvious where I fall.
Fun side fact, Justin Trudeau has apparently made a motion for a formal posthumous pardon of the conviction of George Klippert. I didn't know anything about him, but on CBC they told a bit. Basically was arrested under suspicion of arson, admitted to having consensual gay sex with 3 other adult men, and was classified a dangerous sex offender. Supreme court of Canada (I'm guessing with their own version of Antonin Scalia on the panel) upheld the ruling, and he was placed in "preventative detention" (i.e. lockup with no set timeline). All of this is horrendous, and lead to Tommy Douglas (go NDP!) stating the next day this was dumb as shit (paraphrasing). Within 6 weeks the "Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968-69 (Bill C-150), an omnibus bill which, among other things, decriminalized homosexual acts between consenting adults. The law passed, and homosexuality was decriminalized in Canada in 1969" by a pre-PM Pierre Trudeau, and his lovely "There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation". Glad to see the neighbors to the south are also playing catch up
Mark