[Anaz]

Originally posted by 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"

thats the point...it is about the crusades...the crusaders killed non-christians...

[Knight Templar]

Originally posted by 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"

Yes it has, but that does not mean it is or always will. That is just incorrect. What if Me and my best friend Ned were talking. Ned wants me to pick him up at the airport. I say "Ok Ned. I am coming to get you. Be at ready by 3pm. Bye."

Are you saying that in that tone, I am speaking maliciously to Ned?

Rightfully so, Analazon does have a point.

[Anaz]

bottom line: "coming to get you" only implies bad things if party "A" (which is "coming to get "you"") means ill-intent to "you"

happy?

[Knight Templar]

Originally posted by 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?

I fully intend to been kinda pre-occupied at the moment though as you see. Will do though.

And as for the location, it was kind of a stretch. When I joined I hade a rather long siggy already ( ) and so I put it in the location slot as it seemed more unique and made the siggy smaller . That and it was sort of relating as in I am a crusader. Where am I? Well I am coming to get you.

that sorta thing

*skips over to control panel*

EDIT: On second thought.. Maybe we can make this intresting. I'll change it based on the outcome of this. I want to see what happens next, without provocation. Only if this gets boring

[Knight Templar]

Originally posted by Anazalon

bottom line: "coming to get you" only implies bad things if party "A" (which is "coming to get "you"") means ill-intent to "you"

happy?

Sorry Anaz (can we change your name? )
I was writing while you said that.

I fully agree with what you said. I was only defending the fact that Coming to get you. by itself is not malicious at all.

[Anaz]

Originally posted by Knight Templar


Sorry Anaz (can we change your name? )
I was writing while you said that.

I fully agree with what you said. I was only defending the fact that Coming to get you. by itself is not malicious at all.

yes KT, that is a very good shortening of my name

[Levyathan]

Don't you just hate it when Windows crashes while you're typing a very long reply?

Originally posted by Knight Templar
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.

From your previous posts it's not evident how the two things are related. If you're trying to make a valid point, now's the right time to do so.

Originally posted by Knight Templar
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.

Yes, you did? As in yes, you did use that information to make your statement seem less offensive?

Originally posted by Knight Templar
And how!

Actually, it isn't.

Originally posted by Knight Templar
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.

Talk about being evasive! In the context of that statement, it's obvious that coming to get you implies an evil act. It would make no sense otherwise.

Originally posted by Knight Templar
Violoated their freedom? I highly doubt that.

Defamation.

Originally posted by Knight Templar
Besides, you do not know that no christian agrees with what happened during the Crusades.

The average Christian doesn't. If one does, he shouldn't even be called Christian. Don't tell me you think every single Christian agrees with what the Church did back on the Crusades. Not even the Pope does. We're talking about the majority here.

Originally posted by Knight Templar
And I think everyone see's how well the "agreement"" facotr works here

It works perfectly. If you don't think so just give me some substantial arguments.

Originally posted by Knight Templar
well that's half true...

Do you mean that your question wasn't evasive or that you did reply to the other argument?

[Levyathan]

Originally posted by 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"

Exactly! Otherwise it's coming to pick you up or something like that, but not coming to get you.

[Anaz]

I hate it when truespace crashes after spending an hour working on a mesh...

[Knight Templar]

Yes, you did? As in yes, you did use that information to make your statement seem less offensive?

As in yes I did. That seemed kinda obvious, no?

The average Christian doesn't. If one does, he shouldn't even be called Christian. Don't tell me you think every single Christian agrees with what the Church did back on the Crusades. Not even the Pope does. We're talking about the majority here.

Ok I won't tell you that. But what I will tell you is they did back then. And the quote pertains to "back then". Back then (being the 12th century) the pope fully backed it and so did the christians.

It works perfectly. If you don't think so just give me some substancial arguments.

Confederates

Do you mean that your question wasn't evasive or that you did reply to the other argument?

Take your pick.

From your previous posts it's not evident how the two things are related. If you're trying to make a valid point, now's the right time to do so.

ask Lobsterclaw.

Actually, it isn't.

 

Defamation.

and you get the great big canadian Eh'? of the day.

[Levyathan]

It seems to be getting shorter!

Originally posted by Knight Templar
As in yes I did. That seemed kinda obvious, no?

Great! Now answer my question then: how does that information make your statement seem less offensive?

Originally posted by Knight Templar
Ok I won't tell you that. But what I will tell you is they did back then. And the quote pertains to "back then". Back then (being the 12th century) the pope fully backed it and so did the christians.

But with that statement you're insulting today's Christians, not some Christians that died eight hundred years ago. Therefore, you are insulting the wrong people.

Originally posted by Knight Templar
Confederates

What about them?

Originally posted by Knight Templar
Take your pick.

Both, obviously.

Originally posted by Knight Templar
ask Lobsterclaw.

Nope, you should be able to answer yourself. Not nice asking for help in this kind of discussion, son.

Originally posted by Knight Templar
and you get the great big canadian Eh'? of the day.

Actually, it isn't like in actually, it isn't a brilliant piece of argument. And defamation as in you violated their freedom by defaming them.

Next!

[diamondgeezer]

Right, let's get this settled. All those in favour of KT's 'offensive' location say aye.

Aye.

[Anaz]

Aye

don't really matter...one person is unhappy out of...30 or so active posters..?

[Levyathan]

Ack. I said three times already, I didn't feel offended by it. Some people might feel, though...

But if he keeps it I'm damn well gonna find a comedian quote about blacks and use it. It's prejudice all the same.

[Knight Templar]

As I said, I have much to do, and this is taking way longer than I anticipated.

Great! Now answer my question then: how does that information make your statement seem less offensive?

You're asking how again? For some reason it strikes me as a thing that has to do with points of view.

My most objective response would be that it is a harmless joke, much like you said that banning me for a week and giving me a humilating title was, or so you said then.

But with that statement you're insulting today's Christians, not some Christians that died eight hundred years ago. Therefore, you are insulting the wrong people.

Are you sure of that?

What about them?

Confederates would be your main error. Many modern-day confederates still hate african americans, want them as slaves, dead, not equal. note that I am trying to politically correct and not outright call them "rednecks" "hicks" or "cracka's"

Nope, you should be able to answer yourself. Not nice asking for help in this kind of discussion, son.

Lobsterclaw knows fdirst hand why this is consuming my time and I need to cut it soon. Lets say I am "working on something special".

Actually, it isn't like in actually, it isn't a brilliant piece of argument. And defamation as in you violated their freedom by defaming them.

[size=10] Eh'? [/size]

[Knight Templar]

But if he keeps it I'm damn well gonna find a comedian quote about blacks and use it. It's prejudice all the same.

what a tard'. You guys know this is his covert way of getting to 500 without us realizing

Note: Using a "prejudice" comment wouldn't quite make you the defender you are trying to live up to, now would it?

[Anaz]

Originally posted by Knight Templar


what a tard'. You guys know this is his covert way of getting to 500 without us realizing

well...just stop now...he's at 495...

[Levyathan]

Originally posted by Knight Templar
You're asking how again? For some reason it strikes me as a thing that has to do with points of view.

Then, as a matter of point of view, can't you even concieve the possibility of it being understandably offensive to Christians?

Originally posted by Knight Templar
My most objective response would be that it is a harmless joke, much like you said that banning me for a week and giving me a humilating title was, or so you said then.

But yours isn't a harmless joke. It's an offensive joke. And it isn't less offensive just because it's a joke, either. Mine was just a reply to your joke.

Originally posted by Knight Templar
Are you sure of that?

Unless there's an 800 year old Crusader roaming around, yes.

Originally posted by Knight Templar
Confederates would be your main error. Many modern-day confederates still hate african americans, want them as slaves, dead, not equal.

And what's the problem with that? They agree with their old counterparts, so they may be considered the same group. I can't see that as a substantial argument against the agreement factor, but as one more evidence for it.

Originally posted by Knight Templar
Lobsterclaw knows fdirst hand why this is consuming my time and I need to cut it soon. Lets say I am "working on something special".

There's no rush. You can answer whenever you have the time. I'll be waiting.

Originally posted by Knight Templar
[size=10] Eh'? [/size]

Running out of arguments, huh?

So, we're still left with this unanswered point - which you seem to be forcefully evading:

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.

[Levyathan]

Originally posted by Knight Templar
what a tard'. You guys know this is his covert way of getting to 500 without us realizing

What did you call me?

Originally posted by Knight Templar
Note: Using a "prejudice" comment wouldn't quite make you the defender you are trying to live up to, now would it?

Heck, no. But who cares - if it's allowed, I might as well do it!

[Knight Templar]

Then, as a matter of point of view, can't you even concieve the possibility of it being understandably offensive to Christians?

I can, but I'm saying that it wasn't meant to be and shouldn't. It obviously is, you are a testimonial. And for that matter, how come you can't even conceive of it being a joke that shouldn't be taken heavily at all?

But yours isn't a harmless joke. It's an offensive joke. And it isn't less offensive just because it's a joke, either. Mine was just a reply to your joke.

well then you must ask, is any joke really harmless?

Unless there's an 800 year old Crusader roaming around, yes.

Someone has to protect the holy grail.

And what's the problem with that? They agree with their old counterparts, so they may be considered the same group. I can't see that as a substantial argument against the agreement factor, but as one more evidence for it.

out of curiousity, who agrees with that statement? You're being hypocritical again though.. you said that it wouldn't make today's christians christian if they agreed with what happened during the crusades. Yet todays Confed's agree with yesteryears. So can they still be considered loyal confederates after they beleive in the same ideals and want the same results, have the same flag, recognize everything they do.

Running out of arguments, huh?

hardly

And I did answer your "forcefully evaded statement"