neoplacebo wrote:"I sometimes stay awake at night fantasizing that others are fantasizing about me and wonder why they would do such a thing. I don't understand it."
Vrede does the same thing, and he understands that he's got to run and tell the world in order to make himself appear to be something he ain't.
He's a legend in his own mind.
<sigh> So Homo and occasionally Mr.B writes directly or by implication that they think Vrede is homosexual. Neither of those people, as far as I know, actually knows whether s/he is or isn't. So their opinion is conjecture. A result of imagination. Or, must we say it, a "fantasy." Has nothing to do with whether Vrede thinks the world revolves around him/her. Has nothing to do with his/her opinion of him/herself. If one is engaged in guess/conjecture/hypothetical about somebody else, one could call it - gasp- fantasy. Admit it, guys/gals/trannies - you really are fantasizing about Vrede.
O Really wrote:"BTW, Vrede, thanks for working today. Even if your colleagues don't mention it or your patients don't appreciate it. And Merry Christmas!"
Same here....even if he did do it only for the O/T....he said so.
O Really wrote:<sigh> "So Homo and occasionally Mr.B writes directly or by implication that they think Vrede is homosexual. Neither of those people, as far as I know, actually knows whether s/he is or isn't. So their opinion is conjecture. A result of imagination. Or, must we say it, a "fantasy." Has nothing to do with whether Vrede thinks the world revolves around him/her. Has nothing to do with his/her opinion of him/herself. If one is engaged in guess/conjecture/hypothetical about somebody else, one could call it - gasp- fantasy. Admit it, guys/gals/trannies - you really are fantasizing about Vrede."
One can't say anything about Vrede and not be accused of fantasizing or obsessing about him. Personally, I don't care what he is, or ain't. My point was that he gets his step-ins in a wad any time someone says something negative about homosexuals as if the remark was made directly towards him. That's what started this whole affray that got me banned for losing my cool. I regret what I said, but I'm not going to grovel and apologize to him.
O Really wrote:"BTW, Vrede, thanks for working today. Even if your colleagues don't mention it or your patients don't appreciate it. And Merry Christmas!"
Same here....even if he did do it only for the O/T....he said so.
O Really wrote:<sigh> "So Homo and occasionally Mr.B writes directly or by implication that they think Vrede is homosexual. Neither of those people, as far as I know, actually knows whether s/he is or isn't. So their opinion is conjecture. A result of imagination. Or, must we say it, a "fantasy." Has nothing to do with whether Vrede thinks the world revolves around him/her. Has nothing to do with his/her opinion of him/herself. If one is engaged in guess/conjecture/hypothetical about somebody else, one could call it - gasp- fantasy. Admit it, guys/gals/trannies - you really are fantasizing about Vrede."
One can't say anything about Vrede and not be accused of fantasizing or obsessing about him. Personally, I don't care what he is, or ain't. My point was that he gets his step-ins in a wad any time someone says something negative about homosexuals as if the remark was made directly towards him. That's what started this whole affray that got me banned for losing my cool. I regret what I said, but I'm not going to grovel and apologize to him.
Vrede is for equal rights and treatment for all; homos, heteros, blacks, whites, browns, yellows, poor, rich, stupid, smart. And I am, too. Vrede is just more passionate about it than most of us who feel the same way. Because of this, he will challenge those who would deny any of those groups the equal treatment and rights they rightly deserve. It's an American thing that a lot of us seem to have abandoned in favor of personal views that have no legal or moral standing. Now I will go take a nap and fantasize that others are fantasizing about me. Thanks.
Vrede wrote:Well, the rich don't need my defense of their rights . . . and thanks to web forums I'm not 100% sure about the stupid.
Ah, I didn't mean to suggest you're an advocate for the one percenters or even the intellectually challenged; only that you would not support even those groups being denied their basic civil rights. I think I was into the Budweiser the other night when I posted.
Vrede wrote:
" have never once asked for an apology, you're imagining things again. I have said that we can't move on and restore your own rule if you don't have the balls to admit that your violating it was wrong. The issue here is your lack of integrity, not my feelings."
Vrede wrote:"You're fantasizing again. I think it's hilarious that your childish spam is agreements with my prior statements. " " was a big clue."
Well, you know me. If I didn't agree with you, you'd go off on another name-calling, fantasizing and obsessing accusation tangent (see your reply) and get your step-ins all in a rumple, so I figured the best thing to do is keep the peace and "agree" with your "prior statements". After all, you get all grievous when someone don't agree with you.....don't you?
Vrede wrote:We all got spammed 8 times by your childishness.
First Mr.B says that he was just "getting in the last word", then when it's pointed out that he actually posted agreements with my prior statements he reverses course and says that was his intent. What a wuss!
Vrede wrote:We all got spammed 8 times by your childishness.
First Mr.B says that he was just "getting in the last word", then when it's pointed out that he actually posted agreements with my prior statements he reverses course and says that was his intent. What a wuss!
Atheists are just as much into charity. They just don't consider building or funding a church to be charity work.
(There was a thread on the old forum where someone made a "you don't see atheist helping out" claim about a then-current disaster. People started posting a long list of atheist charities that were doing exactly that. Does anyone remember which disaster that was? It seemed later than Hurricane Katrina.)
rstrong wrote: "Atheists are just as much into charity."
Didn't say they weren't. I was comparing your Christian charity remark to atheist charity, which as far as I know, are comparable....however when a disaster strikes, you hear more about Christian organizations coming to the aid than you do atheist organizations. Maybe it's a media thing, I don't know, nor will I speculate.
Personally, I can't name any of the known atheist organizations, locally or nationally.
Vrede wrote:
"There are tons of secular humanitarian aid groups, including Oxfam, Save the Children USA, Mercy Corps, the International Rescue Committee, CARE, Doctors Without Borders, the Red Cross, AmeriCares, the United Nations and the US government. They provide far more aid faster than Christian charities, without the prejudice that some Christian charities have or the mandatory listening to preaching that some Christian charities require. With all these options, there's no need to create atheist charities. Except for a relative few, it's not like we're a club. We're just very different people that happen to share not needing the man-made crutch of religion."
By being 'secular' means they're an atheist organization?
How about some proof confirming that in order to receive aid, you have to listen to preaching? What do they do, tie 'em down? Also, tell us about the confirmed prejudices you know all about.
If you've got proof, I'll admit I was in error, and will tell the directors of the Christian-aid agencies I know that they're doing it all wrong!
Yeah, I don't think Mr.B has quite a grip on use of the term "atheist." Sure, it means a non-believer, but most non-believers or non-religious people don't consider themselves "atheists." That's because there is little difference in a "practicing" atheist and a practicing believer. It's still oriented toward the existence on non-existence of a god. Well-known atheists such as the late obnoxious Madelyn Murray O'Hair are equally fervent in their version of a theist belief. The rest of us, and most of those "secular" organizations aren't atheists. We just don't care. So if you're looking for an organization that has a sign saying "First United Atheists" you're not likely to find it. Doesn't mean atheists and other non-believers aren't capable or willing to run worthwhile social and aid organizations.
A website called "Queerty" is your reputable source? You subscribe to some weird crap!
Any way, owing to that post about the SA, I'll admit I erred; however, the Christian Aid organizations I'm familiar with do not have any prejudicial stances that I'm aware of, but they will not agree with the statement that homosexuality is not a sin. The SA doesn't want to jeopardize donations which are already dwindling.
As far as my posting any notes, don't hold your breath.
Vrede wrote: "....you doubted that there is prejudice, asked me to prove it, I did, you're not man enough to admit error.
Of the thousands, you named one, which is an organization that's been around for years. I spoke of locals. Sorry you were too dense to pick up on that. I thought since you were a resident here, you would be familiar with them since they were such hateful organizations, and you knew about all of them.
"Actually, "word" means that you agree with the prior statement. You just screwed yourself with your spam. Good one."
