The Cowboy Who Wasn't There: E-book Companion Site

Friday, April 3, 2009

John Loftus' Embarrassment of the Millenia!

People are probably going to hate me more for this, and I may be viewed as even more "childish" and other related labels, but no matter what anyone has to say about me or this blog, what has recently occured to John Loftus cannot possibly be matched in proportion.

Take a good gander at your calendar and you'll see that April Fools Day has hit us all once more. I'm sure there are people like myself who typically don't take the time to notice these things or really get involved with its cultural significance. Luckily, I already had an idea in mind for this special, yet underrated, holiday. That idea of mine was to help "fulfill" the prophecies of John Loftus, which go along the lines of something like this:

John W. Loftus said...
Just a reminder this will be YOU apologizing someday.

This was the very first comment in my previous post here. He posted this, he personally believed, because my profile has the word "Deist" currently on it, that I was going to eventually get aggressive with JP til the point that I became detested by his character. Right.

This year, it dawned onto me that I should probably consider that "April Fools" was just around the corner. This previous week (not far off from when I made my last post) I had concocted a scam in hopes of fooling DJ based off of this line of reasoning. And...it worked.

But let's give credit where credit is due as to why it worked, specifically. I had originally planned to "fake" a conflict with Holding on TWeb to set the realism of what would later become the trap. Obviously, the draft that Loftus got a hold of was still being in development at the time that me and Holding were working together to perfect the scheme. Because of my limited diskspace and the fact that the current computer from which I am blogging from is related to a family relative's business company, and the likeliness that I probably wasn't going to come up with a perfected document within a day of my allowable free time, I had momentarily posted it here on Blogger in order to copy and paste the text so that Holding could examine it and give me suggestions on how it could be better modified.

Unsuspectingly, Ed Babinski, a DC contributor and another frequent commentator on this blog, had subscribed here. Even though the posted draft was probably on here for about a minute and a half, Babinski quickly rushed to the 'Copy and Paste' manuever and sent an e-mail to John, as explained in his post. To both myself and Holding's suprise, John fell for it. DJ just so happened to be more gullible than Holding had previously posited in the past. Even I was sure that DJ would not fall for such a simple plan. And yet, he had.

Well John, I appreciate your somewhat selfless motive in trying to reach out to me and "save" me from Holding, BUT WHAT ON EARTH makes you believe that I would abandon JP for you? Do you not understand that these issues are centered upon moral character, and not philosophical stances? The fact that you make this out to be the case shows you're in serious case of self-delusion. This is a moot point when you fellow non-Christian TWebbers such as Anon and The Moonshield that seem to get along with Holding just fine. More recently, CodewordConduit
(who has also commented on here a few times herself) distanced herself from your destructive behaviors which end up decreasing your crowd of potential allies. So where do you get off assuming that I will follow in the same exact path as Matthew Green? Do you have anything to justify this? If not, why do you make the assumption?

There can't be much said on just how much John's "You bully me because I'm an atheist" is a moot point to boot. It's obvious. The more and more John insists on "engaging" us at TWeb, the more he embarrasses himself. He has no one to blame. But he does try (and is certaintly welcome, as it is his own right to risk his reputation) to save face:

I guess April Fool's Day is an excuse to lie, eh? Only the lie was not offered on this particular day, but a few days ago. Why not lie on, say, July 1st then wait to reveal that it was a lie next time April 1st rolls around? Now with your ignorant example everyone has a right to lie if they want to any time of the year, right? All they have to do is wait until April Fool's day to "confess." Oh, and tell me, gerrymanderers, if this isn't the case then exactly how many days can separate the lie from April 1st when you reveal it as a lie? I'm all ears.

As I've already mentioned on TWeb, the reasons for this "lie" being predetermined prior to April 1st is that this was already planned and prioritized. Without responding to a word I said (because I'm a "sewer" rat not worth responding too of course), I guess DJ didn't really take the time to read anything I typed because he manages to ease his way around the issue by implying that this was sloppy work of some kind. Oh, and just like his Big Blog Lie thread, he double-posted in order to gain some personal salvage. But we all know better than for it to actually work this time:

At least when I was confronted with a lie I owned up to it. What do you think Holding and TBT will do?

Really, John? I mean, REALLY??? Is this the best you can do?

In the event that John still doesn't believe me even after having posted a private message I received from JPH on the intended blog post (at the time of DJ's discovery, it was only a draft), I'll post some more undeniable proof that the whole thing was plotted from A-Z:

Re: A childish favor to ask (March 25th 2009 , 08:47 AM)

ROFL,

Funny you should suggest this. I had a very similar idea myself to "apostasize" on the blog on April 1, but I thought it rather too obvious. Your idea is much more subtle and may have a better chance of working; and if he falls for it, it will indeed, as you say, make him all the more obviously someone who does not think things through.The only catch is that one of his followers on the blog may check the calendar and tip him off. All that collective non-intellect together (eg, Deist Dan) can't even build a Lego barn individually, but together they may figure it out.Sounds good. If you proceed, let me know who else is in on the secret so I don't inadvertantly tip any hands. At a minimum I'd suggest letting Nick (Phoenix) in on it, and the rest of our crew.

Take care,

JP

Not enough for ya, John? Well then...

An idea! ( March 25th 2009 , 05:19 PM)

OK, here's the deal....

1) I'm due to review "Losing My Religion" by William Lobdell for my E-Block subscription e-zine. I just started reading this evening.

2) DJ LOVES this book: http://debunkingchristianity.blogspo...at-review.html

3) I've already read enough to see that Lobdell isn't credible....he's not as bad as DJ by far, but he's not an intelligent critic either.

4) Tomorrow sometime in the morning, I'll give him a Screwball Award.

4) Later tomorrow, you post in the Screwball thread something to this effect:"I hate to disagree with you here, JP, but while you may be right about Lodbell this way," etc etc etc, "I think he is honest and credible," etc. (If you like this plan), I'll send you some details about the book so you can sound like you read it.)

5) I'll act a little surprised and offer to email you my review.

6) Friday, Saturday....all quiet. I'd suggest limiting your interactions here on TWeb; and in particular, IGNORE ME.

7) Sunday or Monday: Drop the bomb on the blog. Say we had a major falling out by email over my "dishonest" review of Lobdell. I'll write you a quote from me to use in which I "tell you off." For realism, don't forget to remove sidebar links to my site, my one post, and my name as an admin. (I'll save a copy of my post.) Say I'm "off" the blog and you're considering what to do with it, and also reconsidering your stint on TWeb. Then do not post there or on TWeb until....

8) Wednesday the 1st....when you drop the bomb! If you do this, it would be good to let the other blog members like aki know what we're doing and ask them not to post either.

I'll be offline shortly and back in the morning....let me know what you think!

Take care,

JP

There you go, moot point #2 has now been laid into the ground as another stupid strawman brought on by more of the typical self-denial. John...YOU'VE BEEN HAD.

But even in the event that that just isn't good enough for John...

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2629353&postcount=89 (Pixie, you have full permission to post a screenshot of the message that was forwarded to you and the others prior to this prank).

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2629675&postcount=118

And I guess John really did admit to lying about his blog in that good ol' stickied thread of his which proves that he made it all up. Going back to what was said in the not-so-long ago past:

Technically, I didn't lie.

Prove to me I did.

Besides, it doesn't matter that you know I started the Blog. I don't care. People will still visit there regardless, and I will continue sending people there.

You are the dishonest one.

Ah...and the truthfulness just keeps on coming. Priceless. And the best John's stupidity has to muster up is by twisting around the focus of the story (rather predictably) onto me and JPH for being the "liars" here. There are two interesting distinctions of why this is not so:

1) This was clearly a joke from the beginning. While not everyone was made aware beforehand, some were in fact notified prior to the event. Instead, John lied to his readers about the second blog and had no intentions of revealing to anyone that it was all fabricated.

2) Now that April Fools has come and gone, everyone that was fooled now knows that it was all a prank. As can be proven, JPH and myself admitted to the whole scheme of things. John...regardless of what he claims rather delusionally...did not and denied it in the face of the undeniable.

Moot point #3 has now also been laid to the ground.

Next another note of importance, CodewordConduit has recently publicly denounced DJ as a credible person:

I'll have to admit that the "information" that John had "sent to him" was written by me. However, it wasn't written to him - it was lazy conjecture between me and somebody else. This other person said "can I forward this to John?", and I was like "yeah, whatever, if you like."

He never even asked before posting it up here - and treated it SO SERIOUSLY! Like I was desparately analyzing exactly how he got his arse handed over to him on a platter and thought the world should know that something might not have gone to plan! Yeah right-o, dude got served.

At the end of the day I think it's pretty obvious that I have no side in this silly catfight, I just like the laughs that the situation provides. And this week?

The laughs are at John's expense. Mostly becasue of his hysterical whining and finger-pointing after the event.

Priceless.

Ms. Conduit, welcome to the Dark Side. Would you like some cookies? (Okay, maybe she hasn't taken a side yet, but she's certaintly welcome too. :)).

Not long after his response here, John made it a public issue on his blog (trying very hard not to be specific or to reference anyone in particular), which, after having been spotted by myself, was permanently removed from Debunking Christianity for some even more irrational motive than what John had in mind for posting it in the first place. I was sure that he did this so that no one could see how he argues based on emotional phases, and I was almost sure that, by John having removed it from DC, that the post was gone forever. It was removed so quickly that even a simple Google search for the post's title does not having any listings for 'Cached' page (UPDATE: Google must have taken a while to get to this, but the Cached version can be found here). I'm sure John intended this to be that way.

But lo and behold, a Tektonics.org frequenter (I know who you are though, but I'm not going to reveal it to everyone for your own sake) had saved the post just in time before having been erased. Down below you'll find the exact wording to the post that John had hoped of ridding forever (of course, the moral of the story is that if it isn't worth the publicity, why bother publishing it in the first place?). I had planned on removing expletive asterisks in order to demonstrate the degree of severity in John's inability to stomach a simple prank, but in order to keep this site at least somewhat "family friendly" I'll shorten the words out a bit so it isn't so explicit as it was in its original posted form:

Perhaps I'm Losing It; I Don't Know

I am ****ing tired of being shot at from both sides of the fence for five years because I actually want to reach the opposing side. If you are a skeptic and you want to take pot shots at me then **** off. I do not care. I really don't. There are many sites and books that preach to the choir on both sides of the fence. Fine. Go to them. That is not what I'm doing here. Get the point. I'm about ready to quit. I really am. I no longer care. I've done my part.

It's funny, because in many places, it sounds as if he's making an official leave and is closing shop. I'm pretty sure the comments he received had little to do with this. It'd be my hunch that this post is being rather disingenous (spelling?). It isn't because John really has intentions of leaving and closing shop, it's that he wants sympathy. He needs the comfort. And what is even more saddening is that John is taking a shot at both sides, not just Christians. So we have it here that John isn't interested in debating it, he's interested in reaffirming himself and keeping his ego inflated. I'm sorry John, but it's da truth, and you know it just as well as any other Tektonics.org TWebber.

Let's get a last-minute point clear: John and his lap dogs cannot logically claim that this is a post of "strawmen." There is evidence of this happening, word for word, as quoted. Unlike his blog, where has the freedom to remove content that either is self-destructive or censorship of opposition he doesn't appreciate, what he has posted on the TheologyWeb forum will stay there forever. This is perhaps one of the greatest moments in time that DJ has once again manged to embarrass no one else but himself. This isn't just some blurb to blog about. This, ladies and gentlemen, is going in the history books.

And at the request of fellow TWebber Tophet, I will end the commending of this glorious event in TWeb history with a song tributed to John Loftus' recent palm-faced blunder.

20 comments:

  1. And you should. It's really the only place where you can document a person saying something and they are going to have great difficulty going to the extent of denying having said it!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dear Truth Be Told,

    I saw your pre-April Fool's Day post on my google reader feed. I also saw that your post was not on your website. Google reader apparently gathers up whatever you post and saves it for me to read later at least once, even if you have deleted it already. Someone also told me that if I "star" a post then my google reader will never delete it, even if you have deleted it on you blog.

    After reading your post the first person I emailed was you:

    From: EDWARD BABINSKI
    Sent: Sun 3/29/09 8:30 AM
    To: truth-be-told
    Hi TBT

    I noticed something you wrote recently which appeared on my google reader but not on your blog. I had added your Debunking Loftus site to my google reader and this came up, but it doesn't appear on the blog itself: [quoted material from your blog]...

    ~~~

    You didn't respond to my email. So I checked tweb, and thought maybe to send you a message there, but first read your most recent posts and saw what you had written a day or more before your blog post, on the topic of J.P.'s review of Lobdell's book. You didn't agree with J.P.'s review, but you also didn't say you were going to do anything radical concerning your blog site. It looked like you were expressing some genuine disagreement toward J.P.'s review of Lobdel in your tweb emails.

    I did not send the content of your deleted blog post to Loftus until later, after reading all of the above.

    ~~~~

    But all such discussions are besides the point.

    If you want to read questions closer to the point might I suggest the following:

    Biblical Studies Carnival:
    http://biblical-studies.ca/carnival/

    CrossTalk2: The Historical Jesus and Christian Origins group-- A Yahoo group that consists primarily of biblical scholars in a wide range of fields:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/

    THE JESUS LEGEND reviewed by a biblical scholar on the website of the Society of Biblical Lit. The reviewer goes into some specifics but says at the end, "Nice try."
    http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2009/01/ken-olsons-review-of-jesus-legend.html

    JESUS INTERRUPTED reviewed by a biblical scholar, with an interesting discussion of inerrancy in the comments section. Worth reading.
    http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2009/03/review-of-bart-ehrman-jesus-interrupted.html

    The Last Gasp of Inerrancy
    http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2009/03/last-gasp-of-inerrancy.html

    "Inerrancy" posts at the above site. There's some interesting ones with links to such discussions among other bibliobloggers, discussions that appear more congenial and scholarly than those J.P. carries on:
    http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/search/label/inerrancy

    CHRISTIAN BIBLIOBLOGGERS RESPOND TO J.P. HOLDING'S APOLOGETIC CLAIMS

    Bankrupt Apologetic Claims
    A Christian biblioblogger discusses apologetic claims from J.P. Holding:
    http://rdtwot.wordpress.com/2009/03/12/bankrupt-apologetic-claims/#comments

    Burgess Picks Up Where I Left Off
    Another Christian responds to apologetic claims of J. P. Holding’s regarding the dates, authorship, and texts of the NT:
    http://rdtwot.wordpress.com/2009/03/15/burgess-picks-up-where-i-left-off/

    Extreme Right v. Extreme Left: A Hopeless Debate?--Another Christian biblioblogger responds to apologetic claims of J.P. Holding:
    http://matthewburgess.blogspot.com/2009/03/extreme-right-v-extreme-left-hopeless.html

    Best online satire of J.P. Holding's and arguments for biblical inerrancy:

    "P.J. GRASPING" DEFENDS THE INERRANCY OF THE LORD OF THE RINGS TRILOGY AND OUR SAVIOR FRODO:
    http://frodology.blogspot.com/2009/03/pj-graspings-frodological-guest-spot.html
    http://www.blogger.com/profile/02864129887028231291

    ReplyDelete
  3. Personally, if I were a deist (TBT, you say you're a deist at tweb) I'd be more embarrassed to lend a hand to folks who claim YEC is their default position and who defend not only biblical inerrancy but pre-70 A.D. dates for all the N.T. writings.

    Longtime Evangelical biblical inerrantist minister converts to deism:

    http://brucedroppings.com/2009/03/22/a-letter-to-my-family-friends-and-former-parishioners/

    ReplyDelete
  4. Lastly, TBT, the title of your post,

    "Embarassment of the Millenia!"

    reeks of J.P. Holding's self-aggrandizing trophy room pronouncements. You're both handing out trophies and awards. If only they meant something other than self massaging your own egos.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hey Babinski, you mind telling me what your comments have to do with anything?

    You didn't respond to my email.

    That's because it's not my one and only address that I use. I did see it having logged in this morning. What does this have to do with anything?

    So I checked tweb, and thought maybe to send you a message there, but first read your most recent posts and saw what you had written a day or more before your blog post, on the topic of J.P.'s review of Lobdell's book.

    Correct, Edski. That couldn't be because this was planned, could it?

    You didn't agree with J.P.'s review, but you also didn't say you were going to do anything radical concerning your blog site. It looked like you were expressing some genuine disagreement toward J.P.'s review of Lobdel in your tweb emails.

    There were no e-mails between JPH and I other than those which concerned the perfecting of the April Fools Day prank, Baboonski. That's uh....duh...the reason why it's called a prank.

    But all such discussions are besides the point.

    THIS IS the point. This has nothing to do with JPH and his arguments. You are just spanning stupid crap to get in an endless argument with Holding. Cut it out and address the issues for what they are sensibly, please.

    Personally, if I were a deist (TBT, you say you're a deist at tweb) I'd be more embarrassed to lend a hand to folks who claim YEC is their default position and who defend not only biblical inerrancy but pre-70 A.D. dates for all the N.T. writings.

    I'm not really caught up in changing or affirming beliefs, Ed. I know that's your take, but the fact that my profile says "Deist" on it has no bearing significance on how I choose to interact with Holding or my association with him. It's irrelevant. I'm not into the fundamentalist thinking you've been unable of breaking out of, where if I'm a "skeptic" of sorts, I must be vehemently opposed to someone of a differing perspective. Beside the point, Babinski.

    Lastly, TBT, the title of your post,reeks of J.P. Holding's self-aggrandizing trophy room pronouncements. You're both handing out trophies and awards. If only they meant something other than self massaging your own egos.

    That's an awful cheap shot, Babinski. And not one that really does any good to your case, either. Instead, you are taking up bandwidth by posting spam on this blog when you have nothing else to respond with. And, seriously, are you willing to deny that John and yourself don't feel stupid for falling for such a prank? Talk about self-massaging egos. You found something you thought was of vital note and the both of you took the bait. That's how much inflated your egos happen to be. But nevermind that, because such discussion is beside the point....

    ReplyDelete
  6. You took exception to my use of the term "tweb emails?" Pardon me, I meant "tweb exchanges" that I read b/w you and Holding.

    I never fell for anything. I asked you a completely indifferent question via email and also passed along the info from google reader to others. And even if someone fell for you having a falling out with J.P., a practical joke is beside the point of theological discussions, and falling for one is not as much of an embarrassment as you inflate it to be, i.e., "...embarrassment of the millenia?" Employing such hyperbole on your part seems a bigger embarrassment.

    As for your deism, what type of deism is it? Do you believe in the inerrancy and/or inspiration of the Bible? Do you believe in miracle stories in the Bible? Do you believe in the divinity of Christ? The Trinity? Yes or No?

    Here's a dictionary definition:

    de⋅ism–noun
    1. belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism ).
    2. belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.

    SOURCE: Dictionary.com Unabridged
    Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.

    So what DO you believe, Truthski?

    ReplyDelete
  7. As for calling my emails "spam" because I attempt to lead the conversation toward some actual theological arguments concerning the views of J.P. Holding, pardon me. But turnabout is fair play in my book. So if Holding and yourself are going after Loftus then I might as well use this blog site (which "allows anyone to post here for ANY reason") to go after Holding. Unless of course you wish to alter "...post here for ANY reason" to "No attacking the arguments or views of J.P. Holding or pointing out links to sites that do."

    ReplyDelete
  8. Gee, Ed, I kinda figured that people would have the sense not to use this site strictly for the uses of going after Holding.

    And yes, it is "spam" because you are going around posting these things of yours rather mindlessly. Is that really neccessary?

    I never fell for anything. I asked you a completely indifferent question via email and also passed along the info from google reader to others. And even if someone fell for you having a falling out with J.P., a practical joke is beside the point of theological discussions, and falling for one is not as much of an embarrassment as you inflate it to be, i.e., "...embarrassment of the millenia?" Employing such hyperbole on your part seems a bigger embarrassment.

    Well, Baboonski, in case you haven't noticed, this isn't a site about theology. And this isn't a post about theology. Therefore, you derailing my posts which are mostly unconcerned with theological arguments would make your commentary beside the point.

    But you did fall for it, Babinski. You made my job easier. Why did you think it was worth reporting to Loftus if it was already deleted and wasn't sincere? You reported it as if it was genuine, hence, you fell for it. And if it is not much of an embarrassment, as you claim it is, explain why Loftus created that DC post of his then and then shortly after removed it? Ah, that's right, you can't.

    As for your deism, what type of deism is it? Do you believe in the inerrancy and/or inspiration of the Bible? Do you believe in miracle stories in the Bible? Do you believe in the divinity of Christ? The Trinity? Yes or No?

    Why do you care, Ed? Honestly? The label of "deism" is to me a stance which holds the possibility that a divine creator exists, but at the current timing in my philosophical reasoning does not interfere significantly with the order of natural operations. It does not influence my politics, my views of Christians, or "whose side" I'm on. Like I said before, it's irrelevant. Now get off of it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. What the heck, truthbetold.

    The site is not about theology? Is the purpose then really just to bring people together and spend their time on little other than debating: "lookit how dumb Loftus is, hahaha?"

    I think everyone concerned has a lot worth contributing. We should be downplaying any personality issues and trying to stick to the legitimate debates that they unfortunately keep derailing.

    Systematically critiqueing Loftus' posts here would make sense (and I'd hope would attract a larger readership), but I just see no value in your or his attacking the other person directly.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The site is not about theology? Is the purpose then really just to bring people together and spend their time on little other than debating: "lookit how dumb Loftus is, hahaha?"

    You could say that, I guess. What I meant is that this site is not strictly about theology. It can be, and sometimes it is. But it's not primarily a theology blog. It's more of a culture-politics type of debate blog. John just so happens to be a peddler of the atheist cultural revolution, if one would call it that, so this is why the blog is here.

    I want to keep reminding everyone that we here at Debunking Loftus come from different backgrounds and have different approaches in discussion. JPH will debate Loftus with theological and Biblical commentary points, and I simply argue based on Loftus' cultural perceptions and how they can be misleading or misconstrued.

    Although in doing this, one can't argue that it's been a hoot for many.:D

    ReplyDelete
  11. I see Babinski's still spinning like a top. I haven't seen him actually fuming with anger before, so this is a nice change.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Well yeah, "I could say that."

    You just told "Baboonski" (alright, I admit that these barbs do sometimes represent a certain level of literary art, although I wouldn't want to open myself up to the same in response ;-) ) "this isn't a site about theology."

    ReplyDelete
  13. Let's just say for a minute that this was a site about theology, it doesn't excuse Baboonski for making comments which attempt to derail the topics of posts which are unrelated to theology. Does it?

    And this post isn't about theology. It's about John's reactions to the prank. Hypothetically, if this prank was of serious intent, there isn't anything that would have prevented John from acting like this, save the temporary post he tried to dispose of permanently on Debunking Christianity, which is still at eye access for everyone to see.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Ed Dumbski is posting the same crap list he posted before -- which I already gave my comments on re another post. He's like the windup cymbal-crashing monkey who never shuts up with the same canards.

    Look closely: That is what happens to stupid people who get frustrated when they can't answer arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  15. No, truthbetold, I'm not making an exception for Babinski either. But everyone has the opportunity to say, "see how I try to stick to the issues and see how the other guys can come up with nothing better than to attack me personally."

    If Craig or Dawkins's debate opponents were to start doing that, they would be seen by both sides as desperate losers. I'm just amazed that nobody sees that in these blogs and discussion boards.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I can see your point, ismellarat.

    It is somewhat difficult trying to engage the enemy in a non-personal way, when in fact, said enemy takes almost any attack against his arguments as personal attacks. It's near impossible to get to the heart of the arguments with Loftus, without getting through the heart of Loftus first.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Dude,

    Me and my buddy love this shit. You da bomb! We ain't got no atheists in our 'hood but we got some jews and niggers and we pulled one on them too. They were talking shit about dinosaurs and shit so me and my friend went to show them we got the holy spirit and shit and we pulled out a lighter and lit our farts on fire to show them we was filled with holy ghost power. They looked at us and laughed so we put a beating on them like Jesus did at the temple and now the jew got some stiches and the nigger is in the hospital ans shit. The cops came but we don't care cause we feel righteous like you. Thanks for your writing and shit.

    ReplyDelete
  18. It's best if you lay off the weed, Chuck.

    ReplyDelete

If you are unaware of the rules on comments, please consult this post for more information.

Complaints and suggestions about the blog's comment moderation policies should be addressed here.

READ BEFORE POSTING: Do not post comments if they do not deal with the topic addressed in our posts and ESPECIALLY if they deal with pointing out the hypocricy of Christians and the flaws of the Christian religion. This is not about issues of sensitivity but maintaining an atmosphere of freshness and relevant discourse. ANYONE posting these comments (in the event they do NOT deal with the topics we have introduced) will have their comments deleted without warning. Post with care and attention to this simple request, thank you.

NOTE: This blog mirrors Debunking Christianity in that we allow only registered users of Blogger and Google accounts in commenting on our web pages. Anonymous commentators are not permitted.