02-12-2007, 09:08 PM
|
#635 (permalink)
|
| | Re: Stop if you've heard this one before (Re: Why are SUVs and Christianity similar?)
no spam <no@spam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I think having them ride a bike, the vehicle Jesus would have ridden,
>>>>>>>>> By all reports, Jesus walked, went boating and (on special occasions) sat on a young ass.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> IOW, he used the transportation of the day.
>>>>>>> Pity that bikes arent that.
>>>>>> Depends on where you are.
>>>>>> Nope, and its certainly not true of where you are, or where he is either.
>>>>> Seems to me that they are in some cities. I used to have a vid clip of an Asian city showing
>>>>> what looked thousands of bikes on a round about.
>>>>> Pity that fool that got nailed up by the romans aint asian.
>>>>>> I don't think there's a US city with that many bikes
>>>>>> in total much less on the road at the same time.
>>>>>> So your silly stuff is just that, mindlessly silly stuff.
>>>>> Of course bikes aren't much use for us who live in the middle of no where.
>>>> So your silly stuff is just that, mindlessly silly stuff.
>>> Tell you what, tell me how much use a bicycle is for me.
>> Irrelevant to that mindlessly silly stuff of yours above that you carefully and dishonestly
>> deleted from the quoting and I have restored.
> You have gotten so confused
Nope, not confused at all.
> you have even lost me.
You're easily lost, you're just another rabid bigot fundy.
> Let's review
> 1) I stated Jesus used the transport of his day.
Irrelevant to that mindlessly silly crap about bikes.
> 2) You said that it was too bad "that bikes arent that", suggesting
> that bikes are not the transport of today by using the present tense.
They arent the transport of today where that fool who
was stupid enough to get nailed up by the romans was.
> 3) I replied that in some places bikes ARE the transport of the day in some areas.
Pity they aint where that fool who was stupid enough to get nailed up by the romans was.
> 4) You brought in Christ again,
Because that was what was being discussed, what he would have ridden.
> reverting back to the past. Split up my response, see #3, and called my response to you, see #2,
> silly.
Your irrelevant **** stays completely irrelevant **** regardless.
> 5) I asked you to support yourself by telling me how me how it was silly.
Another bare faced lie.
> 6) Get off track again and refuse to respond.
Another bare faced lie.
>>> Let's take buying groceries. To get from my new place (closer to town now) to anything other
>>> than a 'quickie mart' store (they don't tend to sell
>>> much in the line of fresh veggies there) I first have to head down my
>>> driveway (just a couple hundred yards) to the county 1 1/2 lane wide
>>> dirt road. Take it for about a mile where I get to the paved county
>>> road, 2 lanes no shoulder. After about 3 miles on that I can get on
>>> a state highway and go only about 45 miles. Yeah, I can see how me
>>> thinking a bicycle isn't much use for me is silly.
>> Irrelevant to that mindlessly silly stuff of yours above that you carefully
>> and dishonestly deleted from the quoting and I have restored.
>> What was being discussed was what that fool that was stupid enough to
>> be nailed up by the romans would use for transportation, not what you use.
> That's how it started but changed it when you changed to the present tense.
No I didnt, that was implied in the original.
> If that was what you meant instead of saying :
> "Pity that bikes arent that."
> you should have said
> 'Pity bikes were not that.'
Wrong, as always.
> See words mean things
Not that you have ever noticed. You're so stupid you cant
even work out the difference between an idea and a religion.
> and when you use them poorly you don't make yourself clear.
And you could never ever bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.
|
|
|  |