Jump to content

ktf

Saints
  • Posts

    474
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by ktf

  1. Yawn. What a boring and predictably dim response. If you look closely, you'll see that I only ever commented on the nature of your posts, never on you as a person. Ok, maybe once when alluded to the fact that you might be smug and arrogant. However, anyone reading your posts couldn't fail to agree. So to say that insults are the "first refuge of those who don't understand" (or some cack like that) really is quite irrelevant. Or it would appear to be irrelevant until you rad through your post and realise that you make comments about me not understanding because you use big words (an insult), comments like 'surely you get that?' (insults), arrogant comments about double negative use and how you are so much better (insults), as well as the general condescending and insulting tone of the whole post. Using your own argument, you don't understand what you are talking about. On the double negative comment, perhaps it would have been better presented as "a person can't have 'no ideology'". It isn't a double negative but a contradiction to a previous comment. I was hardly going to say "a person can have an ideology", as that wasn't the point I was making. Instead of attempting to be a smart-arse pedant, try reading what people write and just replying to it. The fact that you believe that you know and can apply the English language better that some other people doesn't make you any better, smarter, stronger or superior to anyone else. Maybe no-one has told you that before, so I'm telling you now. It doesn't make you look big or clever. It makes you look like an arrogant prick. No-one is impressed. I'm sorry, but it is impossible to find an institution repugnant. Institutions are people. They are made up of people. Exist because of people. Exercise their rituals because of and through people. Without people there would be no institutions. Their rules, traditions, theories, beliefs etc are all products of what people have said and done. It is impossible to hate an institution and not hate the people who are part of that institution. Finally. How is "hope this helps" wrong? Wrong to who? Wrong for what? Wrong how? Wrong why? I'll tell you what is wrong, though: "I hope this helps? (question mark)". You can't put a question mark at the end of a statement. Anyway, I'm bored of this now. Hope this helps
  2. My apologies, it was I... Although, since that initial post they group has become the Paisley and District Muslim Ladies Carpet Bowls Society. They extended it to Renfew, Johnstone and the likes and threw the men out...! They were try to get a peek up/down the burkas
  3. At last, someone from the atheist camp who speaks sense and carries some credibility. Thank the LORD!
  4. Well, traditionally and for the purpose of this thread, yes. Literally, any god. Well pedantically pointed out
  5. 1. Isn't a "count" - it's pedantry of the highest (read lowest) order. 2. Glad to see you have been nominated to speak for all atheists on this matter. When did this happen? Or were you naturally selected to be the representative? Of course, that can't be the case as it is the smartest that rise to the top, not the most smug/arrogant... If I have understood the theory correctly. You should really read Dawkins et al for some concise and accurate information on Atheism instead of assuming what you believe to be true and spouting it on here as if it is fact. Atheists do indeed adhere to an ideology, the ideology that there is no Christian God. If Christians believe that there is a God and that He is revealed trough the scriptures and through the person of Jesus Christ, then the Atheist ideology is opposed to this. It is impossible to not have an ideology. Ideology is defined as the study or concepts and ideas. In the context used in this thread it is about beliefs or lack of beliefs that form that way that a person lives. Even if someone doesn't know that they have an ideology, the way that they look at life, the things that they do, their aims and goals all for their ideology. A person can't have no ideology. Christianity, or any other religion for that matter, doesn't "bind people in one mindless mass". That is Atheist scaremongering and shows a clear atheist ideology and agenda to indoctrinate people about the "evils" of religions. Maybe some do, but most churches I am aware of encourage their members to think, study, debate and come to their own conclusions on matters of faith, doctrine, ethics etc. Religion and Christianity will always have extremists, but don't be foolish enough to allow the few to influence your view of the many. And on that, to suggest that religion "binds people into one mindless mass" is an attitude the type of which you claimed atheists don't have. This makes you a religious bigot. So, let me get this straight. A person's lack of a belief in a Christian God means that they will dismiss the teaching of the Christian faith and therefore hate Christian teaching and what the Christian faith stands for. And this type of hatred, of a belief system is perfectly rational? So, extreme negative emotion because a person doesn't hold to the beliefs of another person is the product of careful thought? So, if I hated Darwinism and the exponents thereof, that would be borne out of rational thought? Or is it just your point of view, your own hatred, your own prejudices, your own bigotry and your own non-ideological ideologies that are a result of rational thought and everyone else's are a result of... Eh... Mashed potato? Pie in the sky? The TV? What? Your point of view is conceited and arrogant to the highest order and really quite offensive to read and process. Just as not all Christians (Roman Catholic or Protestant) are bigots, neither are all Atheist. They are happy believing what they believe and, when given the chance, will respectfully put their point of view across. But others, like You Bluto, are bigoted. They (you) spout derisive, maligning, negative, scaremongering, ill-informed misinformation in a mocking and condescending tone and try to so in the name of rational or religious or atheistic superiority. It is sickening to read and smacks of hypocrisy. Thankfully most people, religious or atheist aren't like you and don't spout as repulsive and ignorant bile as you do. Live and let live, buddy Hope this helps.
  6. And I object to them NOT being associated (whatever that means) with any religious organisation. My grounds for objections? Diversity, inclusivity and multi-culuralism. I can object just as much as you can on just as valid grounds. Oh, and on that, as I have some experience in this, it is very hard to justify (without being taken to court and ruled against), if you are advertising your premises for people to hire out, to discriminate again a particular group because of religion, sexual orientation, race, gender etc. So, unless you want the club taken to court and tarred with all sorts of brushes, they really have no choice but to allow it. A reasoned debate? What, based on the inaccuracies of your interpretation of Christianity and Christian doctrine and on the blanket fallacy that all science agrees with all other science, is 100% provable and not based on assumption and "faith"? A reasoned debate in which you expound the virtues of modernist atheistic humanism but those who desire to express the hope they have found in their faith or the greater meaning and calling of their existence or the life that they didn't know they could have or the freedom or healing or purpose will be roundly mocked and called weak-minded and told that their points of view are meaningless because the are individual and post-modern and based on feeling as opposed to "reasoned argument". Which, by the way, is all that Atheism is, a feeling, opinion, though on how the universe might work. Darwinism, as you openly lauded in an earlier post has a very slim evidence base and is largely theory that, for lack of another more provable scientific answer has become the mantra for those who can't be arsed looking deeper into life or the origin of such. There is no reasoned debate in Darwinism, there is no reasoned debate in humanistic atheism. It is as much based on feeling assumption, hope and faith, as religion is. Excepting that, religion has centuries and millennia or research, debate, conversation, scholarly input, theism, writing speaking and thinking attached to it to give it weight an validity. Humanistic Atheism, has about 20 years of poorly researched and poorly regurgitated misinformation produced by poorly educated, prejudiced individuals with a desire to make the world a boring and poorer place. A reasoned debate would be one, but since you have no foundation from which to debate that isn't misinformation or mocking, I see that as being unlikely. No insults, just the advice to go and research Orthodox Christian Doctrine on Creationism vs what you just reckon people in churches think about how the world was made. You may be shocked.
  7. There is no difference. Yes they would. Well pointed out, my friend!
  8. Proper apostrophe use, is a figment of yours. Therefore, a bit of education is completely relevant!
  9. The good news is, it's free!!! With the optional obligation of 10% giving from your gross annual salary to cover the costs of the tambourines, swords, burkas and carpet shampoo. What do you get?! Good LORD man, only the greatest gift humanity and all of fallen creation has ever received... A free pass to the "Ka-Bowl" the Kabul Bowls Festival!!! A veritable flesh-satisfying orgy of indoor bowls, Qorma and Kebobs.
  10. If they hired a room out to a group for that purpose, I may enquire about renting out a room for the purpose of bringing together those who don't care who hires the rooms at the stadium and get pissed off when people use thier lack of education and blatant religious prejudices to make a big song and dance about who uses the space at the stadium. For the sake of the booking form, I may call it the "Amalgamted Collective of The Extreme Fundamentalist Church of Tamborines, Swords, Inclusivity, and Ancillary Muslim Ladies Carpet Bowls Society". Anyone care to join?
  11. Do you also not like church-going people?
  12. Spot on, I think he's an idiot and I am also offended, well I would be if I was the sort who got offended by the inane and worthless opinions of the bigoted, ignorant minority...
  13. Some comments were very condescending at the thought of a religious group using the stadium. Some clearly stated that 'religion has no place in football', as if letting a church use the facilities suddenly makes St Mirren a catholic/protestant [delete as appropriate] team. Perhaps holding RAC conferences makes us royalists or all car enthusiasts...?! You're right, it should be the job of those individuals to maximise the income... However, I think the figures are that the Falkirk stadium pulls in approximately four times the income per annum. And since this move has only come about due to the CiC involvement, all the more reason to have other people looking at this.
  14. It's completely negative and small-minded that people would think this is a bad or wrong move. The whole idea behind the CiC model is that we increase the revenue of the club, one of the major strategies for this is to maximise the income from the stadium facilities. There really aren't any other businesses who would need conference facilities on a weekly basis, especially on a Sunday. This equates to regular income, on a day and time when no-one else would use the place. Try to put your religious prejudices aside and consider the good of the club and a local organisation. Also the opportunity to increase the fan base with members of the church and the kids that probably go. I can't see any negatives in this. And I have no agenda, if it was the Renfrewshire gay and lesbian Subbuteo society or the Paisley muslim carpet bowls team, I couldn't care less. Regular income and potentially more fans... Everyone's a winner!
  15. Actually a brilliant post. What's the issue that people have? Please explain to me, using sensible words and properly constructed arguments, why this a big deal...
  16. I do wonder what the implications are for the 48% (as they have come to be known). I wonder if the CiC guys have thought about some type of share transfer for the any of the 48%, so that they can move their shares over to the CiC in return for CiC membership for x number of years... That way, at least the 48% have something on offer and perhaps the risk of being alienated is slightly lessened.
  17. More or less the first poster to agree with something animal has said... Immediately after posting you have a number of people replying negatively to you. You continue to dig yourself into a hole. You have "extensive experience" in communicating anything to anyone? Give it a rest and tell it to your JSA advisor when you go to sign on this Tuesday. If you give out an insult, you should expect one back. If you can't handle it, don't give them out. And certainly don't carry on crying in public about it. If he's a "brave boy" then presumably I am too - I am, but please explain what you mean by that? Was it some form of veiled thread... : Quality stuff, threatened by an anonymous internet alias!!! Whatever next? You'll be calling me names, telling how much experience you have at battering people and how you know where I live.
  18. Right, so whats to say the exact same thing isn't happening here. Fans are being asked to pay £10 per month for "a say in the running of the club". One man, or a select few individuals, will be running the whole thing. And are you seriously telling me that members of the CIC won't be questioning where their money has gone when the manager tells the press there is no money for new signings. I know SMISA have successfully managed to encourage some fans to part with money to buy players t-shirts and towels in the past - is that what this business model is based on? I hope the plan is better developed than has been revealed so far because all I've read is that they want to get the same fans to part with a bit more money so that Gilmour et al can get their £2m and head off into the distance. Or simply put, you're right, I'm wrong. I know nothing about what I speak and I will come up with a pile of wanky pish to try to dig myself our of a hole. You're welcome :-D
  19. I thought I saw that name somewhere this morning... ETA: nothing
  20. If you were one of the other 48% shareholders, your shares would have been even less than nothing if Reg Brearly had taken over the club. It makes no difference if Roman Abramovich, Osama Bin Laden, Jimmy Saville or every old woman in Paisley contributing a fiver each buys the 52% shares, the 48% become worthless. They 52% are up for sale as a single item and there is bugger all that you can do about that. So you can hardly blame the CiC for that. Besides, if someone bought shares in St Mirren, Ab*rdeen, R*ngers or Ch*lsea and thought that they would make a profit from them then they need a full frontal lobotomy!!! Shares in football clubs are nothing more than a badge of honour, whether you are a millionaire and own a majority or a pleb and own one. The whole CiC model seems to have escaped you and you should probably take a re-read of this forum, or better still pick up the phone and speak to said Ayrshire businessman... He will not own the shares. He will have no leading say in the running of the CiC. However if you do decide to actually have an open mind and embrace the idea of contributing to the CiC then you will have the chance of election to the CiC board and form there a possibility of nomination to the board of the football club. Only by throwing the toys out the pram and storming off in the huff will you be handing the say over to someone else. If you actually contribute, then you give yourself a say.
×
×
  • Create New...