Posted by Sammael on 12 February 1999 at 18:39:01:

In Reply to: Re: From the depths of my fires posted by Utahraptor on 12 February 1999 at 08:18:09:

:
: : So, does the Bible say how deep or how wide the ark is? Are the animals the same size as they are now? You know, humans have continued to get bigger over the years. Are they the same animals we have now or are the animals we have now offshoots of the originals? Maybe they were all 3" long and 2" tall. Incidentally, I do know what rhetoric means. It means bombast. I know what that means too. I see that you're not going to get the point. You claim to know my beliefs and that I'm attacking you because you said they were wrong. You didn't say that my beliefs were wrong. My beliefs aren't on this board anywhere. I would be really surprised if they were. Like I said, I was playing on the court we were on. Meaning that you responded to someone who felt strongly about what you posted with condescention and malice. So I did the same to you. It's not fun is it? I've accomplished what I wanted, but I doubt it will make a difference. Nice to see you can respond to everything that's thrown at you, and with such hurtful retorts too. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but name calling won't make you look any smarter.

: Animals would abrely make a bigger change, like huamns didn't. And we all know they were not in Micro Machine sizes.
: Actaully, MORON, I responded to someone's condescending and malicious response. So, techncially, you had no right to do the same to me. All you did was make yourself look stoopidier than the first. Then you had to chaneg your anme onto of that. NOt much fun to make a fool of yourself while trying to look smart, eh? Wlel, we knwo you cna't posisbly do the reverse. Youa ccomplsihed nothing, jsut fuled a fire. So it cna't make a difference at all, Primitve Earther Dummy Boy. And when did Ie evr say that calling people anme's made me smarter? It's doen to amke the other perosn upset? DUH! NOT fun to ahve soemoen tear your posts apart and degrade you and hurt your feelings, is it? Seems to em liek yuo haven't quite figured out who you're really mad at. And now you've embarressed yourself so mcuh, yuo have toc haneg your name to cover up your tracks. TSK TSK TSK! OH, if only you had responded to him logically and intelligently, allt hsi coudl fo been avoided. TAlkign to him like he talked to me
: wouldn't chaneg hsi condenscending and malicious ways, and mistakenly doing what wnated to do to oen who does what you want to do only gets you into more trouble. Especially when doen to me. I'm a mirror to yuor soul. You post kindly to me, I psot kindly to you. You post evilly to me, I cut you down to size. MY original psot left this baord open to some serious discussing, debating, and edumacating. Too abd you and Wyvernie could only attack thsoe more superior to you. Instead of caryring on a polite, and freidnly converstaion like us nromal folk do. Ah me. "LAUQE ERA LLA OT!"

How did I make a fool of myself? I don't believe that I have and I certainly know that I wasn't trying to look smart. If you knew anything about me, you would know that it's simply the way I speak and the ideas I have. Do you think that I just saved it all for you? I think not. When I say that I accomplished what I wanted, it was that I wanted you to be on the other side of what you had given to someone else, a sort of instant karma. THAT, I did accomplish. I also accomplished in the endeavor of raising your hackles. If I hadn't, you wouldn't have gotten mad and felt the need to retliate once again. With more childish name-calling nonetheless. I am non-nonplus about your name calling. You don't know me in the slightest, how can I be upset about your opinions of me when you have nothing to base them on? You didn't tear up my posts, and you didn't degrade me or hurt me feelings. I was being facetious when I said that. See, I would actually have to care about what you think of me in order for it to hurt. Presently, I'm not mad at anyone, except maybe the whole of congress. I haven't embarrassed myself at all, let alone more. Certainly there are things that D pointed out to me that was wrong with some of the things I said, but now I know better, don't I? I didn't change my name to cover my tracks, Mephistopheles, Scratch and Sammael are among the same order. If I'd wanted to cover my tracks, I simply would have used any of the computers I have access to and would have changed my name to Ty. If I'd responded to whom logically and intelligently? Wyvern? I respond to Wyvern logically and intelligently all of the time, and Wyvern to me, not to mention other people on the board on a somewhat consistent basis. To tell you the truth, Wyvern isn't malicious or condescending at all. So you're right, it won't change Wyvern's ways, since W doesn't use those human qualities. You're a mirror to my soul. I don't think so. Like I said, you have no idea what matters to me or what my personality is. You didn't cut me down to size at all. If someone gives me an intellectual debate, fine. I've had lots of them. However, what's to debate about in your post? Do we get to use theoretical physics or is proof of a belief expected? How can anyone have a debate with someone who makes the rules for what is and what is not accepted? How can anyone really know anything other than what they know right at this moment? Maybe you're a brain in a jar on Mars who has been subjected to a human life program. If that's the case, then nothing you see exists. Do you understand why I'm writing this? You're not superior to me. That's the problem with humans. You're not superior to me and I'm not superior to you. I'm not any better than anyone else. You say it, but you don't understand it. If you did, you wouldn't say that you were superior to us. As far as normal goes, I like to think of Fido Dido, "Normal is boring."

Follow Ups:

• Re: From the depths of my fires The Hunter 13 February 1999 at 08:44:52 (0)