:DUMP:

[Hennessy]

No

[Hennessy]

Oh and a bunch of stonor comics I found mildly amusing as well:

[JackDaniels]

Why not just keep dumping this crap on 4chan where it belongs?
Do you just feel like another faceless moron there and wanted some special attention here?

[RedCelt69]

Why not just keep dumping this crap on 4chan where it belongs?
Do you just feel like another faceless moron there and wanted some special attention here?

Huzzah! And there was me thinking that it was just my age...

10% funny + 90% utter drivel that might be amusing after a lobotomy.

[Humphrey]

Does anyone understand the stoner comics?

[Hennessy]

Why not just keep dumping this crap on 4chan where it belongs?
Do you just feel like another faceless moron there and wanted some special attention here?

Wow I'm sorry I tried to inject a little humour into the echoing solemnity of the sinner these days. Personally I'm pretty sick of the fortnightly religion debate at this place. If it's not that it's hugely verbose posts that are quite simply tl:dr. Anyway I don't have to explain myself to you, I'm by far the superior drink.

[Hennessy]

Why not just keep dumping this crap on 4chan where it belongs?
Do you just feel like another faceless moron there and wanted some special attention here?

Huzzah! And there was me thinking that it was just my age...

10% funny + 90% utter drivel that might be amusing after a lobotomy.

What's in your saved pictures Redcelt? I imagine probably a scanned copy of Das Kapital and a few pictures of Che Guevara sunning himself but I can't claim to be psychic. Post some stuff up, maybe I'll find 10% of it funny and we can have a thread that's not an pointless exercise in intellectual acrobatics.

[Hennessy]

Does anyone understand the stoner comics?

They came out too small. Or you have to be stoned. I don't remember.

[RedCelt69]

What's in your saved pictures Redcelt? I imagine probably a scanned copy of Das Kapital and a few pictures of Che Guevara sunning himself but I can't claim to be psychic.

Here's something from my saved pictures. I did it ages ago on the off-chance a moron did the you're-a-Communist thing. Again. Enjoy.

Post some stuff up, maybe I'll find 10% of it funny and we can have a thread that's not an pointless exercise in intellectual acrobatics.

If you don't like debates, don't read them. Simple enough - even for you.

If you're going to post something funny, instead... a wee tip - make it funny. What you posted wasn't.

[Hennessy]

Post some stuff up, maybe I'll find 10% of it funny and we can have a thread that's not an pointless exercise in intellectual acrobatics.

If you don't like debates, don't read them. Simple enough - even for you.

If you're going to post something funny, instead... a wee tip - make it funny. What you posted wasn't.[/quote]


I can't claim to have found the picture amusing but I like that you went to all that trouble simply to engineer a put-down, you certainly can't be accused of not being thorough! I'll reverse your logic and say that if you don't like threads with stuff I found on the internet in them; don't read them. Simple enough - even for you.

[macgamer]

The Sinner occasionally has light-hearted threads, but the reason why the atmosphere is more 'solemn' is that this message board attracts a certain type of individual. I had never heard of 4CHAN before, but it sounds horrific.

But in the spirit of annoying 'motivational poster' edits here's one:

[RedCelt69]

I can't claim to have found the picture amusing but I like that you went to all that trouble simply to engineer a put-down, you certainly can't be accused of not being thorough!

Oh, it didn't take long. Photoshop and I go waaaaay back. I've spent much longer putting people down, purely with words; but there's a group of people that places far more value in images than words. As such, Photoshop can sometimes be a better resource when dealing with Sun readers.

I'll reverse your logic and say that if you don't like threads with stuff I found on the internet in them; don't read them. Simple enough - even for you.

Logic failure. How do I know that I won't like the threads if I haven't read them? Or am I to assume that (you being you) they're bound to contain nothing but shite? Hey - call me an optimist. One day you might find your funny bone.

I'm not telling anyone what they can or cannot post. It's an internet forum. You get what you're given. Unlike you complaining about yet another religious debate, I (personally) have no problem with people posting internet funnies. If I did, I wouldn't complain that it shouldn't be done.

What is perfectly acceptable (and is exactly what I did) is to offer an opinion on the humour-value of something posted. What with the world (wide web) being free 'n' all...

...and that shite... not so funny.

[Haunted]

But in the spirit of annoying 'motivational poster' edits here's one:
STRAWMAN

Is this supposed to be ironic? The implication that people don't debate Anselm or Aquinas because they are above us is also, strangely enough, a strawman. Why would anyone care what A&A have to say about anything if their premises are faulty/wrong/outdated? You might as well draw up a similar poster with the names Archimedes and Aristotle and sneer at physicists.

[Hennessy]

Redcelt, really now. Normally I wouldn't stoop to your level and reply to your childishness, feed the troll in internet jargon. But your style of argument is simply to assume you know best and everyone else is wrong, something I suppose goes well with your political viewpoints and perhaps your view of yourself. If reversing your own logic fails, it implies your original logic was faulty, doesn't it?

I'm fully aware now you disapprove of my attempt at humour, without attempting to provide some of your own and make this into a cooperative thread where we share rather than attack one another. I would have thought someone who proudly displays which part of the political spectrum they're on would identify with such a thread.Which makes you nothing more, sadly, than a troll. I could add to that and say you're an elitist hypocrite with only vague, romantic attachments to the Left and what it stands for. I'd be indulging myself there though, and giving you something to aim at, but as they say sticks and stones.

Macgamer you've got the idea, perhaps something with a little more general appeal.

[RedCelt69]

Redcelt, really now. Normally I wouldn't stoop to your level and reply to your childishness, feed the troll in internet jargon. But your style of argument is simply to assume you know best and everyone else is wrong, something I suppose goes well with your political viewpoints and perhaps your view of yourself. If reversing your own logic fails, it implies your original logic was faulty, doesn't it?

We disagree with each other - which means that I'm a troll and you're not a troll? <sigh>

I don't assume I know best. I put out my position in the expectation that it can be challenged and shown to be wrong; in which case, I change my position. Otherwise, I assume (based on available evidence) that I'm right. Until such a time as I'm shown not to be. This is a good thing. Any other approach is a bad thing - and prone to error.

You didn't reverse my logic. And this, you see, is your problem. You're just too stupid.

I mean, you're clever enough to go to university, but you really shouldn't read too much into that. University students can come out with some spectacularly stupid things. Intelligence exists in a spectrum - it isn't a binary state. You're intelligent enough to get into further education, but not intelligent enough to recognise that you're dealing with someone more intelligent than you... and to understand that, to them, you're just too stupid.

[macgamer]

Is this supposed to be ironic? The implication that people don't debate Anselm or Aquinas because they are above us is also, strangely enough, a strawman.

It was supposed to be an example of something which is funny to some but annoying to others. Something more of the calibre of The Sinner.

Why would anyone care what A&A have to say about anything if their premises are faulty/wrong/outdated? You might as well draw up a similar poster with the names Archimedes and Aristotle and sneer at physicists.

The passing of time has no effect on ideas, they may be consider 'outdated' because they have been supercede due to development of the original idea or institution of new ones. The mores of the day are irrelevant.

I don't assume I know best. I put out my position in the expectation that it can be challenged and shown to be wrong; in which case, I change my position. Otherwise, I assume (based on available evidence) that I'm right. Until such a time as I'm shown not to be. This is a good thing. Any other approach is a bad thing - and prone to error.

A very wise approach to take and one which I endorse.

@RedCelt69
Your picture did not explain the significance of the numeral '69'.

[Hennessy]

not intelligent enough to realise that you're dealing with someone more intelligent than you... and to understand that, to them, you're just too stupid.

And there is the root of it. It's not arrogant to assume that you're more intelligent than me based on....what? Your ability to trot out snide posts on an internet forum? That's a rather narrow scale on which to measure intelligence. This thread is turning into a fascinating examination of your repulsive personality, redcelt, which I suppose is a natural path to tread given your obsession with yourself. Rather a childish insult to level too, calling someone stupid because you don't agree with them. Astonishingly so, coupled with your assumption that you're more intelligent than me based on nothing other than your sinner activity. Maybe (and I find I have to clearly label my assumptions with you) it's that I have more to my life than the sinner, whereas you really don't. I really do despair for the sinner these days when I see folk like you on it.

Perhaps we could do without the mock <sigh> ing and the one word sentences in your future posts. They demean your intelligence O great one.

[RedCelt69]

A very wise approach to take and one which I endorse.

Sorry, but that made me smile. I nearly gave you as an example. If I'd been making the claims that you've been making, I would have long-since stopped making such claims after repeatedly being shown to be wrong.

Your picture did not explain the significance of the numeral '69'.

I was the first to use the pseudonym of "Red Celt"; online, at least. I used every search engine that was available at the time to find a unique unused name that had some kind of relevance to me. Since then, others have appropriated it which means, on widely-used websites and forums (or, on forums where I've already registered but forgotten my login details - like thesinner), I've had to add 69.

It's a "good" number - for as many (or as few) reasons as any other number's "goodness". In particular, it was the year I was born.

I also like the symmetry of the two numbers together, in a Yin Yang kinda way. The symmetry is extended to my birthday - which is exactly halfway through the Julian calendar. Which makes my starsign (not that I put any relevance into such things) Cancer... the symbol for which represents two crab claws - spookily (or non-spookily) in the shape of 69.

Plus it's a great sexual position... but I suspect you'd disapprove of that one, so left it to last.

[RedCelt69]

white noise

Debating with you is too akin to a shotgun/fish/barrel scenario, so I'll let you work out for yourself why you're just too stupid.

I've given you far too many clues already, but I won't be expecting a speedy accurate response.

[Hennessy]

white noise

Debating with you is too akin to a shotgun/fish/barrel scenario, so I'll let you work out for yourself why you're just too stupid.

I've given you far too many clues already, but I won't be expecting a speedy response.

Taking your own attitude on board I'll chalk that one up as a victory to me and a retreat by you. Do us all a favour now and piss off, will you old chap?