ktf

Have a GD, despite the red one you gave me yesterday

He'll be fine, I'm praying for his mortal soul. Yours too Bluto. jimdickloyal, on the other hand, is in deep sheeite
ETS: note to self, "stop quoting on iPhone"

The FPTP system is being trialed by the Dyslexic r*ngers Supporters Club.

Have a GD, despite the red one you gave me yesterday

Wonderful! As soon as I get my dots for today, you can have one! MAybe you could reciprocate and get my reputation score back up after the debacle on the "church" thread
Oh, I'll see you there for that coffee! Let's hope they sell good stuff!

PoppyCOCK! Your post is embarrassingly stupid. Firstly, you very childishly award a dot to someone who agrees with you. Rather sheepish behaviour that someone like you would ordinarily associate with religion.
You then slabber nonsense about "disaproval" and "hate" being words that detract from provoking and interesting debate then slabber "blindly defend its honour".
Don't get me wrong your incenduary tone is the sandwich to my meat, but I just wanted to helpfully point out your blatant stupidity.

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

But I don't hate the OF. I care too little about them to hate them. And I care very little about my friends' and family's support of them.
An organization/institution isn't 'a thing'. It is a non-entity. It is some ink on a piece of paper and a few electronic signals on a hard disc on the a computer at Companies House or OSCR, or the likes. It is people who make institutions. And if you are offended by an organization, it is because of the actions of the people who make up that institution. Ink and electronic data cannot rationally be hated and they cannot offend.

But I don't hate the OF. I care too little about them to hate them. And I care very little about my friends' and family's support of them.
An organization/institution isn't 'a thing'. It is a non-entity. It is some ink on a piece of paper and a few electronic signals on a hard disc on the a computer at Companies House or OSCR, or the likes. It is people who make institutions. And if you are offended by an organization, it is because of the actions of the people who make up that institution. Ink and electronic data cannot rationally be hated and they cannot offend.

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.

But I don't hate the OF. I care too little about them to hate them. And I care very little about my friends' and family's support of them.
An organization/institution isn't 'a thing'. It is a non-entity. It is some ink on a piece of paper and a few electronic signals on a hard disc on the a computer at Companies House or OSCR, or the likes. It is people who make institutions. And if you are offended by an organization, it is because of the actions of the people who make up that institution. Ink and electronic data cannot rationally be hated and they cannot offend.

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

I'm surprised Supporters have any money left to contribute to CIC's.
After Season Tickets, Car park tickets tops are purchased it's a bit much for the Club to be looking for more of our dough.
Super dooper, we get a Fans bar to spend more of our money in.
Summat just aint right about the whole scenario.

Having read the 10,000 hour document I will be more than happy to become a member. There are a few questions but generally it looks good. I like the fact that the board will be made up from voted in members.
Hopefully St Mirren will become a shinning example in the way forward for provincial clubs. Here is hoping the St Mirren support embrace this and become members to take the club forward for the price of a couple of pints of beer a month.

Really? Shoot the designer.
No, on second thoughts, shoot whoever gave the designer the information for the document. That's better.
It's worth noting that any typo' errors aren't taken on by individuals or the club, they are taken on by 10000hours CIC. My typing errors are asset locked, and cannot be used in evidence against me in court.
...aye, right enough. Sorry Bryan, or Brian even. Ach, as Rory McIlroy says, shit happens, life goes on. I'll change it right now in time for the next revision.

We have sent out to all of those that registered interest at www.10000hours.org details of where to find the download this evening.
However some of the e-mail addresses used had typo errors and some spam filters are preventing information delivery from the address [email protected].
So if you registered but do not recieve an email tonight please check your spam filter and folder or consider re registering incase you are one of the individuals with an incorrect e-mail address

Folks,
The public information document regarding the proposed Community Interest Company purchase of the 52% shareholding is now avaliable.
Further infomation on public meetings and online Q&A's to follow.
10000hours team
10000hours public issue.pdf

Here!
Bully for you!

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.

Proper apostrophe use, is a figment of yours. Therefore, a bit of education is completely relevant!

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.

This was once a good thread...

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

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

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.