Re: Here's some of the stuff Sparklecat was talking about...
Thanks BroodingSkill
the_ignored said:
Some of them would agree...
<~~from Sojourner...
http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?postid=1368153#post1368153
Yak, yak, yak for a bit, he does.
I wonder what he'd say now...
She, not he. And I do wonder if she'd like to take those comments back now.
Quinn- nah, I'll be ok. It's obvious that they simply decided they don't want me as a member anymore, but couldn't find a reason to ban me. No post quoted in violation of the rules, the one who banned me adressing questions that I hadn't yet seen, posting a few times and then banning me with no response on my part, that sort of thing.
Plindboe- Thanks for the link, I've signed up.
Humphreys- I just might agree. Fundamentalist at least, I have no real problem with more liberal Christianity. But it was an amazing life lesson.
jcon- Some of the imagery is a little odd, yes. Covered by the blood of Jesus and such... disgusting image.
*grins at Marc* I do know of one person who complained because they didn't like my signature... I had three things in it. "Cogito," a Paine quote regarding how the only infidelity is in professing to believe what you do not, and a Martin Luther rant against reason.
Flaherty- I recall that. The rule against unbelievers posting in certain forums is rather new. Originally they could post anywhere, then it was pretty much anywhere so long as you're not debating, and then apparently it became at all. Someone called it the Sparklecat clause
