[Anaz]

one rather interesting thing...the whole Nazi thing brought germany out of a depression. The japaniese decided to join the whole thing by attacking the US...causing the US to come out of its own depression. Actions can have highly interesting consequences...

[Knight Templar]

Originally posted by Analazon

one rather interesting thing...the whole Nazi thing brought germany out of a depression. The japaniese decided to join the whole thing by attacking the US...causing the US to come out of its own depression. Actions can have highly interesting consequences...

yes, yes they do..

like the world trade center and al quaeda being blown to hell in return (hey, its a fair analogy ) or Teno and how he brought up this entire sbject *glares*

[lobsterclaw]

Personally I don't think the whole "The Christians are coming" thing is really that insulting or offending, if at all.  I thought it was obviously a joke.   Besides, if anyone doesn't like it, they should take it up with George Carlin, not KT.

[Levyathan]

This is would oh so much easier if you actually read my post.

Originally posted by Knight Templar
i'm not. I'm reffering to the fact that you resorted to pointing out several spelling errors instead of argueing your point further.

If one counts as several, then yeah, I've pointed out several spelling errors.

Originally posted by Knight Templar
I'm answering your question with a question myself.

No, you're asking something completely unrelated to my question.

Look at these quotes and tell me if they make any sense whatsoever:

Originally posted by Knight Templar
Now my location was 1) a driect quote from my favorite comedian, George Carlin, and 2) directly correlated with my name.

Note how you're obviously using that information to make your location seem less offensive.

Originally posted by Levyathan
Okay, so someone else said it before, and it's related to your name - big deal. Explain to me exactly how that makes it less offensive.

Originally posted by Knight Templar
Less offensive hmm? Well would it be less offensive if the statement read as "12th century christian soldiers killed jews and muslims in the crusades of the middle east because they would not convert to christianity" ?

I asked how that first piece of information made your location less offensive, and you answered asking if it would be less offensive if you had said all that. Not a proper answer.

Originally posted by Knight Templar
And the point was, would you still find it offensive if the statement read as "12th century christian soldiers killed jews and muslims in the crusades of the middle east because they would not convert to christianity" ?

But that wasn't my question. And answering that - no, I wouldn't. There you are pointing a historical fact, in the other you were simply saying that christians are evil.

Originally posted by Knight Templar
So you're saying that you are "sticking up for the little guy" then? fair enough I guess....  whatever..

Actually, I'm defending their religious freedom.

Originally posted by Knight Templar
Ah yes, they are disliked by large amounts of people, but does that make it right? Just because a large mass of bodies say it is ok, then is it?

As I said, there's a reason why they're disliked - they've killed a bunch of people. Now there's an opportunity for you to say "But Christians also killed a lot of people in the Crusdaes! Hah!". Remember, though, that those Christians are not the same christians you're talking to today - these ones can't be blamed for and don't agree with what the Crusaders did.

Originally posted by Knight Templar
And you say nobody likes them? I highly doubt that. Watch the news. Al-Qaeda un particukar. There seems to be a lot of people that liked them. Especially when Bin Laden was kickin' it with them, blowing up innocent people.. sick yes? but did nobody like them? I think that is incorrect.

I'll admit the Nazist party is an assumption, but I know some people did like them. Sick ****s? Perhaps, yes, but that doesn't change it.

That's irrelevant for the discussion. People who like those groups might as well be considered part of them in this case.

You still left these points unanswered. Read them once again and reply properly.

Originally posted by Levyathan
Okay, so someone else said it before, and it's related to your name - big deal. Explain to me exactly how that makes it less offensive.

Originally posted by Levyathan
Now explain to me what you meant by homo. Homosexual, perhaps? Careful how you use words, son - you might get yourself in trouble.

[lobsterclaw]

There you are pointing a historical fact, in the other you were simply saying that christians are evil.

There is a big difference between calling people unpleasant and calling them[glow=limegreen]EVIL[/glow]

[Levyathan]

In his statement unpleasant and evil were equivalent.

[lobsterclaw]

Umm.....how can you compare unpleasant and evil?  You use unpleasant to describe the weather.  You use evil to describe Hitler...

[Knight Templar]

No, you're asking something completely unrelated to my question.

Look at these quotes and tell me if they make any sense whatsoever:

oh, but it is related. look hard and sift through all the quotes and you will see.

Note how you're obviously using that information to make your location seem less offensive.

I am? I wasn't aware of that. How so?

I asked how that first piece of information made your location less offensive, and you answered asking if it would be less offensive if you had said all that. Not a proper answer.

really? Seemed like a wonderfully proper answer to myself.

But that wasn't my question. And answering that - no, I wouldn't. There you are pointing a historical fact, in the other you were simply saying that christians are evil.

Now you are simply changing my words. unpleasant and evil are hardly interchangable.

now according to dictionary.com, you could replace unpleasant with any of the following

abhorrent, bad news, bad scene, disagreeable, displeasing, displeasing, distasteful, fierce, grody, gross, hard time, icky, irksome, lousy, nasty, objectionable, obnoxious, poison, repulsive, rotten, sour, troublesome, unacceptable, unattractive, uncool, undesirable, unhappy, unlikable, unlovely, unpalatable, unpalatable, yucky

note that making any replacement is still changing the original quote. Also note that Evil is not among those words.

Actually, I'm defending their religious freedom.

Oh the irony...

As I said, there's a reason why they're disliked - they've killed a bunch of people. Now there's an opportunity for you to say "But Christians also killed a lot of people in the Crusdaes! Hah!". Remember, though, that those Christians are not the same christians you're talking to today - these ones can't be blamed for and don't agree with what the Crusaders did.

Note my examples were there as ones that you may recognize and be able to see a relation. Rightly so, the people that still beleive in the Nazi party today, are not the same nazi's as a generation ago. The same would be with those that agree with slavery (i.e. confederates) they have not commited the same atrocities, but they beleive in the same ideals.

That's irrelevant for the discussion. People who like those groups might as well be considered part of them in this case.

Oh but it is ever so relevant. And if they are part of those same groups, then that would also meant that 12th century christians are apart of the same christians today, which cleary is not true as you stated. Don't contractadict yourself kiddo.

EDIT: and concerning your "un replied" statesments or whatever, I feel i annswered your question sufficently and yes you did read it right

[Levyathan]

Originally posted by lobsterclaw
Umm.....how can you compare unpleasant and evil?  You use unpleasant to describe the weather.  You use evil to describe Hitler...

The Christians are coming to get you, and they are unpleasant people.

The Christians are coming to get you, and they are evil people.

Of course, the original didn't use unpleasant, it used not pleasant.

The Christians are coming to get you. And they are not pleasant people.

By the Christians are coming to get you you can understand that they're evil.

Why do I bother?

[Anaz]

*gets popcorn*

I got $5 on KT...

[lobsterclaw]

I got $5 on KT...

Ditto

[Knight Templar]

The Christians are coming to get you, and they are unpleasant people.

The Christians are coming to get you, and they are evil people.

Of course, the original didn't use unpleasant, it used not pleasant.

The Christians are coming to get you. And they are not pleasant people.

By the Christians are coming to get you you can understand that they're evil.

Why do I bother?

I'll admit, I did err on that part. The original quote did say "not pleasant"

Now don't get my wrong, I'm not an english major, and I never thought grammar was my strongest subject, but aren't "not" and "un" both negatives? Like I said, not my strong point, but from my understanding, they both mean more or less the same thing. If you can prove me otherwise, please, go ahead. I could use some grammatical improvement.  

Now grammar aside, wether it would've changed the meaning or not, that is still changing the words of what I said. in now way that I can perceive can you derive "By the Christians are coming to get you you can understand that they're evil." from "The Christians are coming to get you. And they are not pleasant people."


Please don't change people's words. It'll only get you into trouble.

[Levyathan]

Originally posted by Knight Templar
oh, but it is related. look hard and sift through all the quotes and you will see.

Enlighten me.

Originally posted by Knight Templar
I am? I wasn't aware of that. How so?

Originally posted by Knight Templar
Now my location was 1) a driect quote from my favorite comedian, George Carlin, and 2) directly correlated with my name.

Originally posted by Knight Templar
It was a play on words, at best, but a joke and inteded to be taken that way.  As A christian myself, I find no offense at all.

In the first quote you explained your joke. In the second, you said it wasn't meant to be taken seriously. That's how.

Originally posted by Knight Templar
really? Seemed like a wonderfully proper answer to myself.

Well, that's a brilliant piece of argument!

Originally posted by Knight Templar
Now you are simply changing my words. unpleasant and evil are hardly interchangable.

Interpretation, my friend. Interpretation. Coming to get you obviously means an evil act. Or are you going to say they were coming to get you to give you icecream?

Originally posted by Knight Templar


Oh the irony...

Your statement violated they're freedom. I didn't agree with it, thus I'm defending they're freedom.

One's freedom goes until the point where another's freedom begins.

Originally posted by Knight Templar
Note my examples were there as ones that you may recognize and be able to see a relation. Rightly so, the people that still beleive in the Nazi party today, are not the same nazi's as a generation ago. The same would be with those that agree with slavery (i.e. confederates) they have not commited the same atrocities, but they beleive in the same ideals.

Read carefully. I specifically said that today's Christians do not agree with what the Crusaders did. Today's nazis agree wholeheartedly with what their World War II counterparts did.

Originally posted by Knight Templar
Oh but it is ever so relevant. And if they are part of those same groups, then that would also meant that 12th century christians are apart of the same christians today, which cleary is not true as you stated. Don't contractadict yourself kiddo.

As I said, the agreement factor plays a major role here.

Originally posted by Knight Templar
EDIT: and concerning your "un replied" statesments or whatever, I feel i annswered your question sufficently and yes you did read it right

One of them you replied with an evasive question. The other you didn't even mention.

[Anaz]

both of you...please run your arguments through a grammar checker...even if all that you do is paste it in to word...

[Levyathan]

Well, I can use the fact that I'm not a native speaker as an excuse. If you could point the errors I'd be really grateful, as it'd help me improve my English.

[Anaz]

Originally posted by Levyathan

In the first quote you explained your joke. In the second,
Your statement violated they're freedom. I didn't agree with it, thus I'm defending they're freedom.

right here is my major gripe...

they're = they are
so...

Originally posted by Levyathan

In the first quote you explained your joke. In the second,
Your statement violated they are freedom. I didn't agree with it, thus I'm defending they are freedom.

doesn't quite work.

The form you need to use is their, which is posessive. The other two forms of it is they're which is they are, and there, which is a place.

I am no english major myself, but it still drives me up the wall when people do that...

(I can't spell, I know...)

[Knight Templar]

Enlighten me.

Sorry, time is not on my side today, please, refer back to the original of whatever you want as I don't really want or have the time to go back through all of this.

In the first quote you explained your joke. In the second, you said it wasn't meant to be taken seriously. That's how.

Yes I did. is that ok with you? further to the point, it was an early defense and I was hoping the mature enough would understand where the said joke was coming from. Thus hopefully neutralizing whatever heavy malice they saw in it.

Well, that's a brilliant piece of argument!

And how!

Interpretation, my friend. Interpretation. Coming to get you obviously means an evil act. Or are you going to say they were coming to get you to give you icecream?

Oh really? Coming to get you isn't even a complete sentence within itself? How can it even be evil? Your mother is coming to get you. I am coming to get you. Those are examples. the phrase coming to get you is in no way evil.

Your statement violated they're freedom. I didn't agree with it, thus I'm defending they're freedom.

Violoated their freedom? I highly doubt that.

Read carefully. I specifically said that today's Christians do not agree with what the Crusaders did. Today's nazis agree wholeheartedly with what their World War II counterparts did.

And what about todays "Confederates" ? Besides, you do not know that no christian agrees with what happened during the Crusades.

As I said, the agreement factor plays a major role here.

And I think everyone see's how well the "agreement"" facotr works here

One of them you replied with an evasive question. The other you didn't even mention.

well that's half true...

[Levyathan]

Originally posted by Analazon
right here is my major gripe...

they're = they are
so...

I'm so ashamed. That's something I always notice in other people's posts. I even think "How the hell do they manage to do THAT?!".

Even in the Art forum's description they made this mistake.

[Zeronet]

"comming to get you" implies something of malice or ill intent will happen, it always has. "The boogie man is comming to get you"

[diamondgeezer]

My suggestion is for KT to change his location to the whole big '12th century Christians' line. Mainly to see what happens, more than anything else...

One thing  I never understood, KT - why was that quote in your location and not in your sig?