Pastor Protection Act

I will waste no more time with you, Best, so long as you fail to acknowledge your glaring and insulting mis-characterization of my reply to semi, wherein you alleged that I replied to the wrong person.  I did no such thing and you know it, yet you continue to post irrelevant content in your vain effort to cover your tracks. Pitiful!

___

Have you  gone totally  around the bend, Best??!!

If I thought I was replying to you, then why would I address semi, as follows?

"Once, more, semi, strong and passionate disagreement is not HATE.  You and many other knee-jerk ardent hate card enthusiasts have a very hard time learning that and you are so rigid and so 

driven in your embrace of that shallow tactic that is is unlikely that you will abandon it.  Such a tactic serves only to illustrate the immaturity of your approach to rational argumentation, discussion and debate."

Are you "semi," Best?

You have absolutely nothing to support your inane and asinine assertion that I replied to the wrong poster, and it is glaringly obvious that I did not, as any halfway sentient reader can discern from following the discussion.

________

Oh, No! I put an ' where there shouldn't of been one, & you dare to correct me on spelling? On your post to Best, you should learn to spell. The word is REPLY, NOT RESPLY,  "My resply was correctly addressed to semi". This need you have to do these things shows that you have a very low self esteem. You need to work on that.

Yes, I do know your "religious commitment", you show it with every post you make, especially to Best. In Matthew, it speaks of "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them". Rotten fruit is easy to spot, & it stinks.

Poor old beternnun! He's mistaken me for dire, and bud? Pretty sure one more besides them, and persists even when it's pointed out to him he's posting to the wrong person. Now he thinks semi is me!! He messed up his 'resply' How he gets so mixed up is beyond me.

____

As I posted earlier:

"If I thought I was replying to you, then why would I address semi, as follows?

"Once, more, semi, strong and passionate disagreement is not HATE.  You and many other knee-jerk ardent hate card enthusiasts have a very hard time learning that and you are so rigid and so 

driven in your embrace of that shallow tactic that is is unlikely that you will abandon it.  Such a tactic serves only to illustrate the immaturity of your approach to rational argumentation, discussion and debate."

You have not come close to refuting that, Best, and YOU KNOW IT.You just can't handle being exposed for the precipitous fumbling error you posted, and none of your obscurantist follow-up will change the truth.  You claimed that I replied to you, but the above shows that without doubt, I addressed my remarks to semi--BY NAME.  For you to deny that makes you either a fool or a liar. Which is it?  

___

Not "shouldn't of," semi; the correct usage is "shouldn't have." And as to your "Revelation's", neither the ' nor the "s" should have been there.  The book is not the plural (Revelations), but the singular (Revelation).  There now, we have fixed BOTH of your errors. And as I pointed out to Best, the timeline on our posts shows that I corrected my misspelled word before she posted her attempted "gotcha" on it. Your opinion on my commitment is just that, your opinion, and you have no way to prove it.

Looking for "rotten fruit, are you?  How about telling Best about the "rotten fruit" she has plastered all over this thread with her failure to acknowledge her very evident false accusation against me and her deceitful attempts to cover up her embarrassing blunder.

_____

You're actually very funny & to dumb to realize people are laughing at you, & your "holier than thou" attitude. I haven't seen any rotten fruit out of Best. She doesn't believe in God & isn't pretending to be something she's not.

"If I thought I was replying to you, then why would I address semi, as follows?

"Once, more, semi, strong and passionate disagreement is not HATE.  You and many other knee-jerk ardent hate card enthusiasts have a very hard time learning that and you are so rigid and so 

driven in your embrace of that shallow tactic that is is unlikely that you will abandon it.  Such a tactic serves only to illustrate the immaturity of your approach to rational argumentation, discussion and debate."

You just keep messing up! That's not the post I mean, but you know that don't you? You're just trying to deflect. I don't abandon things. It's you that runs from threads after you've been proven wrong. Again, the above post is NOT the post I am referring to, and I think you know that. Get ready to run beternnun, it's almost that time for you.

____

____

Best, you say, "That's not the post I mean, but you know that, don't you."

I most assuredly do not know that, and here is why:

The post to which I referred, and the one you claim not to be the one you mean, is semi's post.  Here is the relevant part of this string where the exchange occurred, with the relevant text highlighted, for reasons explained below:

My Post:  "There it is again--the old hate card! Welcome to the Land of Best.

My reply:  Once, more, semi, strong and passionate disagreement is not HATE.  You and many other knee-jerk ardent hate card enthusiasts have a very hard time learning that and you are so rigid and so driven in your embrace of that shallow tactic that is is unlikely that you will abandon it.  Such a tactic serves only to illustrate the immaturity of your approach to rational argumentation, discussion and debate.

Followed up by this misplaced and confused observation from Best:

"Looks more like there it is again, beternnun replying to the wrong poster. What is this now, the fourth or fifth time? Gee beternnun, how hard can it be?"

Well, Best, it is screamingly obvious that semi's post is the one you meant.   You extracted my clause--"there it is again"--in your misplaced effort to throw that usage in that post back in my face. My "there it is again" was in my reply to semi, shown above for you and all to see and even internally addressed to semi. Thus it is apparent to all except the terminally dense,  the determinedly evasive, or the cognitively impaired, that I replied to the right post.

Occasionally, like others, I have misread lists of commenters at the top of long strings and have directed a response to the wrong person.  Like others, I have acknowledged my error and moved on.  Typically, my acknowledgement has been graciously accepted.  But my replies to semi within this string, including the one you have become so warped about, were correctly addressed and you know it, but you continue to carry on  as the evasive lying weasel you show yourself to be..

No, it is not obvious because, once more, that is NOT the post I meant. Why don't you just go back and read? Maybe you will look a tiny bit less stupid. I'm not sure that's possible, but you can try. This is just like the thread where you just refused to acknowledge you posted a reply to me for something Dire had posted. You ignored every effort to show you where you were wrong. I think you finally 'got it' and ran. So, once more, go back and read. While you're at it, post any lie I have posted. You can't, and I think it's pretty obvious I don't evade or like you, run from anything. That's funny coming from you, the one that runs as much as jt or bill when proven wrong.

Now I know you aren't the brightest bulb in the pack beternnun, but surely even you understand what "that is NOT the post I meant" means. So professor DA, since that's not the post I meant, you should go back and find the one I did mean. But, I think you already know, you're just desperate to deflect and try to save face.

____

You have been hoist on your own petard, Best. Your "Looks more like there it is again" is the smoking gun that discloses precisely which which post you meant. My explanation above fully exposes your dissimulation and duplicity.

____

In your desperation you have posted two useless attempts to justify yourself, Best.  My reply to this one is the same as my reply to your first weaselgram:

"You have been hoist on your own petard, Best. Your "Looks more like there it is again" is the smoking gun that discloses precisely which which post you meant. My explanation above fully exposes your dissimulation and duplicity."

______

Shame on you, Condie!! You made a mistake & there it is for everyone to see!

================

You exposed nothing but your ignorance professor DA.

=================

LOL, I have him stuttering.

____

There it is again--the old hate card! Welcome to the Land of Best.

Looks more like there it is again, beternnun replying to the wrong poster. What is this now, the fourth or fifth time? Gee beternnun, how hard can it be?

There you go professor DA, now you can't pretend you don't know which post I meant.

___

Of course I meant if for YOU, semi, as is evident to anyone with a grain of sense, since I specifically addressed it to you.  From my post:  ""Once, more, semi, strong and passionate disagreement is not HATE."  Best simply refuses to accept the demonstrated, proven, inescapable truth that my post was to YOU. 

Thus I must view this latest comment from you as in contradiction to your earlier comment, namely, "Shame on you, Condie you made a mistake &  there it is for everyone to see." I trust your most recent comment, then, is an indication that you have seen the light--the light that Best refuses to acknowledge.

______

And why would you view my latest comment a contradiction? What I said is real easy to understand, but I'll explain it to you. My comment was intended as sarcasm because you always correct any wrong or misspelled word. You typed the same word twice when it should have been only once.

I assumed you meant that comment for me, it had nothing to do with seeing any light. 

My gosh he's STILL stumbling around and mumbling!!!! They need to drop a net over him.

____

That kind of vague, unexplicated assertion is powerful evidence that you can not make any kind of to-the-point substantive rebuttal to what I have decisively proven on this issue.  Anyone can put up the kind of nothing reply you just did,but it takes integrity to actually make a valid case for your position, which thus far you have failed to do.

Here is your allegedly "sarcastic" comment, semi, and there is nothing in it to even suggest that it is "sarcasm."  It is a common ploy to allege that one's remarks were "sarcasm" in a vain attempt to avoid deserved criticism:

"I may be wrong (Condie will be sure to let us know if I am) but I think he meant that for me. Because I said most Pastor's hate gays he's associating me with you because he thinks you always plays what he calls the "Hate Card", so he's welcoming me to the 'Land of Best.'"

No sarcasm there, semi.  You analyzed my post correctly.  The "Land of Best" is indeed the land where the hate card and other polemically incompetent devices are often put into play. Your overweening compulsion to take Best's (or most anyone else's) side against me now compels you to back away from what you posted under the pretext that it was sarcasm.

_______

I will not debate the point with you because you don't seem to get it. But I'm going to try to explain to you once. If you don't understand, that's your problem.

When I said "Shame on you, Condie you made a mistake &  there it is for everyone to see", that was what I meant as sarcasm. Why did I mean it as sarcasm? Because you constantly rebuke or correct me (or anyone) if we make a mistake in a spelling of a word. You put yourself on here as some scholar that never makes mistakes, as though you're better than the rest of us. I have backed away from nothing, I stand by what I said.

And for your information, I don't have a compulsion to take Best or anyone's side against you. I take the side of "right". If I'm wrong, I'm open to being shown where I'm wrong. I do not have a closed mind, unless someone wants to treat me like I'm stupid, which I am not! 

I'm getting in far late in this discussion but I would disagree with this based solely on the fact that no longer can citizens rely upon Courts to do their job without being political.  The Supreme (disapointment) Court has obviously made many decisions based upon political popularity or upon what seems in vouge rather than making intrepretations related to the Constitution which is what they should do. 

Granted that there has been many changes and much is different from the time the founders penned the Constitution and there are many things, such as Social Media and technology that the founders never saw coming.  Still though the court should be able to discern what would be in keeping with the intent of the original founders but rather they are being political and even to the point of making law rather than intrepreting it.  So the modern Court has many State governments and lawmakers looking for ways to protect against such a situation as Court that seems intent to legislate.   At least that's my opinion.

-----------------------

a lot of truth in what you said here, gbrk... the thing I find amusing, however, is the reaction of the wing nuts to rulings in their favor as opposed to those that aren't in their favor... In the first case, the Court is seen as the final arbitrator; in the second case it's a leftist, socialist puppet court... So I suppose we have a Supreme Court with a split personality...