*Real* Christians

[Brother None]

CC removed his own post, yes

I think he would appreciate it if your post would vanish too. What say you?

 

[Ozrat]

He said that he wanted to stop debating religion threads.

I saw his post and took the time and effort to write a response to it. If he wants me to edit out the copy of his post that I added into it, then I will gladly honor that request. I won't delete my own words though.

Nobody says that he has to respond (for a "few months" anyways). Just turn off that computer and walk away.

 

[Roshambo]

I wonder who is more insane; the fellow who hears God, or the fellow who talks to God and knows there won't be a response.

Enjoy.

 

[Elissar]

Ehh, there both completely nuts... but not nuts enough to hang with the "cool" kids in the lunch room.

 

[Ozrat]

I wonder who is more insane; the fellow who hears God, or the fellow who talks to God and knows there won't be a response.

Enjoy.

How is it that you've managed to fit into a single sentence what my whole argument was based on?

Elegantly said. Well done.

 

[Brother None]

How is it that you've managed to fit into a single sentence what my whole argument was based on?

Combine the genes of a Japanese general with the genes of t3h nazi leader and...heck...can't expect what would come out to have *no* supah-powahs

In this case, the Awesome Might of Compressing Arguments. KAY-AH!

 

[Big T]

When was his name/av changed anyhoo?

 

[Roshambo]

How is it that you've managed to fit into a single sentence what my whole argument was based on?

Elegantly said. Well done.

While I was recovering from a gunshot wound to my leg (long story, no thanks), I was assigned to aide duty with several of the Chaplains. Greene was the best (Catholic, but in a sort of Father Ted way), but all were good friends. We even had a Satanist chap's aide who by far did the most work and was the most cheerful of all, especially when working in the prayer and library rooms.

We had friends come by and we'd throw together a barbecue/stew/bratwurst picnic out from the back of the staff barracks (BEQ). It was funny as hell watching some of the boot camp kids look nervous when they realized that most of the people in civvies were officers, all around the staff BEQ. The oddest thing of all would be that every time, the discussion would go towards some facet of religion, those represented and not, and we had a number of good debates about them. We got so familiar into looking at each other's religion so we knew where they were coming from and how to reply, it was like being back on the debate team again. We would also be sent the "intolerants", as they nicely call them now, and have a talk to them. When men of the cloth from different faiths come together for an inquisition, it's a little bit for even the most cranky Catholic.

So, to sum it up in a nutshell, we shamelessly ripped off Dogma. It's not what you believe in, it's that you have faith.

 

[Big T]

(Catholic, but in a sort of Father Ted way)

Father Ted rules, shame he (Dermot Morgan) died.

This cow is small, those cows are far away

 

[Ancient Oldie]

Well, a little late in replying to this thread, as I haven't been around in a while, but let me throw my two cents in.

First off, what the hell happened to you Ozrat, or, to put it more precisely, Oz'Reilly?! Has flamebaiting 16 year olds become a new hobby of yours? Seriously, you keep chiding the guy for saying certain things, and then do your damnedest to push all his buttons? C'mon, I expect better things from a more enlightened, tolerant, and better educated person such as yourself. If you don't agree with his prejudiced views, you should prove them wrong, not flame his religion instead. You've only proven yourself to be equally as ignorent as him.

Also, age does make a huge difference. Although most of us might not agree with CCR's views, at the age of 16, I don't think many of us can honestly admit to demonstrating the rhetorical maturity that CCR has shown, and trust me, we were all thickheaded at that age about our worldviews, no matter what they were. Hell, at that age, I was mainly typing out a/s/l IM's on AOL chatrooms, and at 18, I was spouting off all that ultra-liberal and totally-far-out spiritual IMO that you, Sanders, and others are constantly touting as the one and only truth. Yet, I don't go around stating:

Bullshit. Age has nothing to do with your behavior. It can affect your understanding and your mental capacity, especially when it comes to adult topics, but it has no inherant influence on behavior or logic. After all, I can think of at least one important mathematician who developed an important proof when he was only twelve years old. And if you feel like fighting this point, you'd once again be foolishly arguing what decades of research has taught us.

Because the fact is, we all behaved differently as teenagers, we often did very illogical things, and just because some 12 year old is a genius, doesn't mean that he is better behaved than his parents. Try setting off a stink bomb at work, or making fun of a blind or deaf kid in front of a group of adults, and see how many laughs you'll get. I understand that we can easily go on the offensive (at least I can ) when it comes to our views, but straight-up trolling and creating a topic just to get a rise out of some kid is rather low.

Now, to get back to the original topic, which was, if I'm correct, why snakehandlers and others who go into unnatural trances are closer to god than catholics, protestants, believers in the force, etc. Now I've known (and am related to) several santero and pentacostal worshippers in my life, and have even unknowingly gone to one of their "get togethers", and I have to admit, they're a looney bunch.

For one, just because said person can accomplish some sort of feat that wouldn't have been possible if they weren't in a trance doesn't mean that it was because of God. There have been many cases where unnatural feats have been accomplished that didn't have anything to do with faith. Woman have lifted cars off of trapped children, people have survived terminal diseases, unexplicable visions have been had by others, and they weren't pentacostal, or religious, for that matter.

Also, you haven't mentioned the mishaps that occur among these groups either. A personal story; one of my cousin's parents are into that sort of shit. Her dad is a clinical schizo, and is constantly medicated. They began going to this pentacostal church which claimed they could heal him with the power of God. So they began going through that whole schpeil where the people are hyped up and rambling and holering "Hallellujah" and doing all this crazy shit, and the pastor calls up her father. He then made him close his eyes, began calling upon the powers of the almighty, and smacked him right in the middle of the forehead with enough force to make him fall flat on his ass, and proclaimed him to be healed. Well, long story short, the guy is still schizo, and he now has to go to a chiropracter for a fucked up back.

On a sidenote, they're still attending said church, and have to give up a certain percentage of their salaries to remain a member. Coincidentally enough, the pastor drives a brand new Mercedes, always wears new suits, and has several nugget rings on his hands.

This is just one of several experiences that I have had with people who can supposedly become ritually possessed and the like.

Also, and not to stereotype or anything of the sort, but all pentacostal chicks that I have met have either been crazy, Rick James freaky, or both.

And have we also forgotten the Catholics and others who go through similar experiences, or have you conveniantly forgotten about the thousands each year who go through stigmata, have visions influenced by the Virgin Mary, possessions, etc.

My opinion on the subject is this; just because you can work yourself up to a certain state of hysteria (textbook definition to be precise) and babble off certain tongues, pick up snakes, and shake it like polaroid picture of Jesus; doesn't mean that you are closer to God, it just means, with a few exceptions, that you're most likely acting crazy.

Now, let me ask you Ozrat, have you ever attended a pentacostal church, been to a babalawo, or seen some other sort of similar phenomenom?

 

[Sander]

Also, age does make a huge difference. Although most of us might not agree with CCR's views, at the age of 16, I don't think many of us can honestly admit to demonstrating the rhetorical maturity that CCR has shown, and trust me, we were all thickheaded at that age about our worldviews, no matter what they were. Hell, at that age, I was mainly typing out a/s/l IM's on AOL chatrooms, and at 18, I was spouting off all that ultra-liberal and totally-far-out spiritual IMO that you, Sanders, and others are constantly touting as the one and only truth. Yet, I don't go around stating:

Fuck that. Age does NOT matter. I'm 16 and I don't behave the way CCR does. He needs to behave himself, just like everyone else. Including Ozrat.
And, in case you have not noticed, you are not only insulting me here, you are insulting me without any evidence. In case you hadn't noticed, I have NEVER said that Christianity was silly or untrue, nor did I ever say I was anything but an agnostic. In other words, I don't do the far-out spiritual stuff, Ancient Oldie. Get your facts straight, and don't insult me.
Oh, and I'm not ultra-liberal either. Tsch. AND I've never said it was THE truth either.

On snake handlers: You do realise that he never said they were good, don't you?
The POINT he was making was that they have an incredible faith in god to do these things. And that most certainly is true. (This, however, says nothing about the faith of others.)

PS: Where have you been?

 

[welsh]

Fuck that. Age does NOT matter.

Easy to say when you are 16 and perhaps hard to accept as true. But Ancient speaks the truth. I am a vastly different person now than I was when I was 25, or when I was 15. Age matters.

I also think you are venting because you are more angry with Ancient's implications- but if you look back at many of your posts Sander, you will recognize a bit of wishy-washy liberalism. I have berated you on that a few times. It's not your fault so much, but more a reflection of your perception.

Show me a person who was not a liberal when they were young and I will show you a person without a heart.
SHow me a person who was not conservative when they were older, and I will show you a fool- Or sayeth (or something like that) Winston Churchill.

Don't take it so personally. Makes you sound like a chick.

I'm 16 and I don't behave the way CCR does. He needs to behave himself, just like everyone else. Including Ozrat.

Ozrat needs to behave because he's a moderator and thus has asked for and should assume responsibilities- that includes avoiding the desire to troll.

That said, this is NMA, not a pansy garden. If you are so thin skinned that you can't take the occassional jab or heat, then you are in the wrong damn forum.

If the poor behavior begins to distract from the content of what is said, from the integrity of the argument because the argument has become more about personality than issue, then the moderators and admins should intervene.

But we are not your nursemaids or parents. Everyone should behave, but we are not going to teach you manners. If you misbehave, expect to get whacked with a sledgehammer.

And, in case you have not noticed, you are not only insulting me here, you are insulting me without any evidence. In case you hadn't noticed, I have NEVER said that Christianity was silly or untrue, nor did I ever say I was anything but an agnostic. In other words, I don't do the far-out spiritual stuff, Ancient Oldie. Get your facts straight, and don't insult me.

My impression wasn't so much that he was suggesting that you were a religious zealot or a new-ager, but that your views have occassionally been too liberal. If he made a mistake, oh well. No one has the obligation to memorize what you have posted in the past and mistakes happen. If so, deal with it and move on. No reason to get personal.

So as an insult this is a minor one at best. Don't make a mountain out of a mole hill.

I think Ancient's point was that CC's ability to construct logical arguments based on sound reasoning and use of evidence is, if flawed occassionally, superior than many of the people of your age group.

In that judgment, I agree. I have been very impressed with CC's rhetorical ability considering his age. I have mentioned it before, that I would like to have more students of CC's ability. I agree that he has been offensive in the past and sometimes needs to get a grip of himself. That he has overstepped the bounds of good behavior was recognized and duly sanctioned.

Now unless you want to stitch the letter A to his chest, I suggest we move on.

Oh, and it's been a week that CC's been sanctioned. SO the ban has expired.

Oh, and I'm not ultra-liberal either. Tsch. AND I've never said it was THE truth either.

You lie so bad! Dude, you are uber-liberal. You are so California liberal it's scary. I know APTYP has been on my ass for being a "hippy" but man, Sander....

But we have had that discussion before. You have been getting more grounded.

On snake handlers: You do realise that he never said they were good, don't you?

Without reviewing, I thought Oz did make some mention that snakehandlers were better Christians, to which I think the point was then developed as to the difference between being spiritual and religious as two different concepts of supernatural belief.

The POINT he was making was that they have an incredible faith in god to do these things. And that most certainly is true. (This, however, says nothing about the faith of others.)

PS: Where have you been?

I think that's fair.

And yes, Ancient, where have you been? You've been missed and welcome back.

 

[bob_the_rambler]

Im 14 years old, and i dispise liberal thinking. am i heartless? im i without a soul?

no, and i can take shit from anyone. now im not whining just trying to make a point. sometimes when im posting ill get alittle worked up, but it is nothing compared to "older members".

this thread has gotten way the hell off track, its not about a battle of the ages. this post was a baiter to begin with, made to rile you up.

 

[welsh]

Im 14 years old, and i dispise liberal thinking. am i heartless? im i without a soul?

Yes, you have no soul.

Don't worry, you won't go to hell.

Because people without souls do not go to hell but merely blink out of existence like the animals they are.

No.

Don't be silly. Churchill was saying that people have the luxury to think liberal ideas when they are young because their exposure to the world is limited. The more you actually learn about the world, the wiser you become, the less liberal you are because you realize that the world is not what you thought it was.

The older you get, the more experienced you become, the more your perceptions of what is possible become limited, the more illusions are destroyed, the more dreams and beliefs are discovered to be unrealistic, the more realistic you become and, unfortunately, usually the more pessimistic. That's unfair. Pessimism is also just an attitude and often a consequence of being a fallen optimist. The trick is not to be pessimistic, but to be realistic about the nature of the world and then try to make the changes.

This is not meant to be an insult. You don't have to be liberal if you don't want to. No one is holding a gun to your head for liberalism.

That said, honestly, I don't get really understand why a person of your age shouldn't be liberal. If there is a time to dream of a better world, of challenging the status quo, of being hopeful of your ability to make a better place- then you are at that age. I see young conservatives on my campus and doubt they have acquired the depth of understanding to realize the significance of the conservativism they advocate.

Bob - I teach a lot of young 17 and 18 year olds at pretty good university, and often I am surprised at how often these kids have adopted ideas they got from their parents or teachers, and how rarely have they come up with their own ideas. The ability to think individually and critically is also something that is aquired only with time. It is also a sign of maturity and the willingness of a person to define their individuality. By 21-22, most of these people are becoming more than the child of their parents but their own persons. At 18 they are still spooning back the crap they've been fed throughout childhood.

Conservatives, by nature, prefer the status quo. Liberals, generally believe in the ability of people to make the world a better place. You didn't create the status quo but you are getting it just the same. The generation in front of you, mine, is making the world in which you will live. If I were you, I would be pissed off. I would rebel and challenging them, and I would cling to my ideals of a better world. I would because you can't trust the generation that is in power or the one that was in power before them to leave you a better world than they found. And while you lack the power to make changes, you sure as hell can get in their face and demand that they listen to you.

When I have kids who turn that age or even your age, I don't want them to be conservative. I want them to have dreams and hopeful and idealistic. I want them to challenge the status quo and to be critical of the world around them. I don't want them to swallow the crap that has been fed to them from school, from church, from the government or even from me without challenge or critique.

no, and i can take shit from anyone. now im not whining just trying to make a point.

Fair enough, and I have responded. Like I said, I am not insulting you, nor intend this as an insult.

When I was 14 I was fairly conservative. Now I'm fairly liberal. People change. Based on what Churchill says, I would be mindless. I just look at this world we are making and the course the country is taking and it scares me to think where we are going.

 

[bob_the_rambler]

my father is, well a bleeding heart liberal. you must not assume that the oppinions i have are my parents, because they are not.
even though i dispise liberal thinking, i still have dreams of a better world. ive grown synical very early on in my life, i was pushed away by public schools and bullied by punks. i dont fit in anyones stereo-types and i hope i never do. at 14 years old i am attending community college, and hope to earn a degree before im 20.
all i ask is that you assume that what i state as my oppinion, will be my oppinion and not my parents.

 

[welsh]

Bob-

I can understand where you are coming from. But you admit that your situation is very different than most kids your age.

Honestly, I am not so concerned that people are either liberal or conservative, but that they aren't critical or if they make arguments without suffient judgment or realism. But that's, in part, a matter of perception and growth.

Seriously, you will not be the same person or have the same ideas in ten years than you do today. You grow, you change, you adapt and you mature. I think that was Ancient's main point, and one of the point's I am trying to make.

Someone is going to make the sillly comment that,"Well that's not true for everyone." Yeah. But that's stupid. We are talking about generalizations, not universal truths or laws. A generalization speaks to a larger set of data than the one particular case. Thus, most kids who are teenagers have yet to fully develop the ability for critical thinking or lack the maturity to make informed judgments might be an insult, but I think is a pretty fair generalization.

That's not saying that some do have that capacity, or that most are not acquiring that capacity. It't not people who are 25 or 35 have that capacity, because, truth is, there are a lot of dumb shits out there. It is merely a statement about a causal relationship- with time and experience, young people become more mature and better thinkers.

 

[Sander]

Easy to say when you are 16 and perhaps hard to accept as true. But Ancient speaks the truth. I am a vastly different person now than I was when I was 25, or when I was 15. Age matters.

I also think you are venting because you are more angry with Ancient's implications- but if you look back at many of your posts Sander, you will recognize a bit of wishy-washy liberalism. I have berated you on that a few times. It's not your fault so much, but more a reflection of your perception.

Show me a person who was not a liberal when they were young and I will show you a person without a heart.
SHow me a person who was not conservative when they were older, and I will show you a fool- Or sayeth (or something like that) Winston Churchill.

Don't take it so personally. Makes you sound like a chick.

Age matters in the way you behave, yes, but on the internet (and everywhere else) you STILL have to behave yourself. Whether you're 8 or 99, you'll probably be treated the same way, and saying that you're 8 won't let you do things that are against the rules.

Ozrat needs to behave because he's a moderator and thus has asked for and should assume responsibilities- that includes avoiding the desire to troll.

That said, this is NMA, not a pansy garden. If you are so thin skinned that you can't take the occassional jab or heat, then you are in the wrong damn forum.

If the poor behavior begins to distract from the content of what is said, from the integrity of the argument because the argument has become more about personality than issue, then the moderators and admins should intervene.

But we are not your nursemaids or parents. Everyone should behave, but we are not going to teach you manners. If you misbehave, expect to get whacked with a sledgehammer.

That was my point, really.

My impression wasn't so much that he was suggesting that you were a religious zealot or a new-ager, but that your views have occassionally been too liberal. If he made a mistake, oh well. No one has the obligation to memorize what you have posted in the past and mistakes happen. If so, deal with it and move on. No reason to get personal.

If he doesn't want to get personal, he doesn't need to use my name.
Frankly, I may have sounded a bit too pissed off. I wasn't really. I was merely annoyed in what context I was put, namely the following:

Hell, at that age, I was mainly typing out a/s/l IM's on AOL chatrooms, and at 18, I was spouting off all that ultra-liberal and totally-far-out spiritual IMO that you, Sanders, and others are constantly touting as the one and only truth. Yet, I don't go around stating:

And that I regard as totally untrue. I haven't been touting anything of spiritual or far-out-ness (odd sentence), and I haven't said things were the one and only truth. If he'd looked at most of my posts, then he would have seen that I have (at least tried to) give a nuanced view. And on the topic of religion, the topic of this thread, I have never said to be anything but an agnost, and have treated all (almost all) religions equally. Thus I found the comments to be silly, and a bit insulting. Frankly, he shouldn't have used my name.

I think Ancient's point was that CC's ability to construct logical arguments based on sound reasoning and use of evidence is, if flawed occassionally, superior than many of the people of your age group.

In that judgment, I agree. I have been very impressed with CC's rhetorical ability considering his age. I have mentioned it before, that I would like to have more students of CC's ability. I agree that he has been offensive in the past and sometimes needs to get a grip of himself. That he has overstepped the bounds of good behave was recognized and duly sanctioned.

Now unless you want to stitch the letter A to his chest, I suggest we move on.

Oh, and it's been a week that CC's been sanctioned. SO the ban has expired.

Hey, I've never argued that he doesn't have qualities.

You lie so bad! Dude, you are uber-liberal. You are so California liberal it's scary. I know APTYP has been on my ass for being a "hippy" but man, Sander....

But we have had that discussion before. You have been getting more grounded.

Now you're wrong. First and foremost, I'm a socialist. Secondly, I'm a liberal. Thirdly, I'm Dutch. It means I stick to most of the Dutch laws, and those are really liberal laws, so in that respect you may be right.
But ultra-liberal: no. I'm not an anarchist, and I don't promote all liberties for everyone. The one occasion where I did do that (drugs) I was even quickly smacked down. (Even though I still think that legalising all drugs might do some good, it isn't practical now...).

Without reviewing, I thought Oz did make some mention that snakehandlers were better Christians, to which I think the point was then developed as to the difference between being spiritual and religious as two different concepts of supernatural belief.

IIRC, he did, but only in the context of faith. Frankly, this was a silly statement, because you can't judge a man's faith by the group's faith.

Bob - I teach a lot of young 17 and 18 year olds at pretty good university, and often I am surprised at how often these kids have adopted ideas they got from their parents or teachers, and how rarely have they come up with their own ideas. The ability to think individually and critically is also something that is aquired only with time. It is also a sign of maturity and the willingness of a person to define their individuality. By 21-22, most of these people are becoming more than the child of their parents but their own persons. At 18 they are still spooning back the crap they've been fed throughout childhood.

Then how mature am I? Or for that matter, several other people around here. Hehe.

 

[Ancient Oldie]

Cono Sanders, talk about hyper-sensitivity. Welsh was dead-on target about the point I was trying make. I was making a generalization about ultra-liberalist views when it came to the spirituality comment, which would have been better applied to the comments that Ozrat was making in this thread. I just threw your name in there since the point I was trying to make was that at your age, I was as naively ideological in my views as you and others are right now (IMO ). You can quote me on that last assessment if you want, as even you have admitted to having views like that several times.

Anyways, just so that we can be clear on the topic at hand:

Hey CCR,

George Went Hensley had the right idea. You should strive to be more like him by being pure to the Christian ideal and not that tomfoolerly cult you're always raving about.

Discuss.

to which CCR replied:

Actually, Protestants are a distinct minority of Christanity. Catholiscism is as big as Islam, and Orthodoxy is as large as the Bible Thumping strain of Protestantism, and massive in comparison to the Holy Rollers.

So, in short,
FUCK YOU!

Which was followed up by:

These are people who don't need a Minister or Priest to tell them the word and will of God because they have a one-to-one relationship with God themselves. They go into communal trances on a very regular basis. They are able to freely express themselves physically, emotionally and spiritually without fear of retribution amongst themselves. These Christians personally know their Holy Father and Spirit.

How dare you try to imply that your "religion" is somehow more "pure", "rational" or maybe even "better" than these true Christians. These are people who can survive tossing live rattlesnakes between each other, drinking various poisons and holding fire and other hot objects because their God is protecting them. And if they should die, its because God has chosen that to be their time to leave the Mortal Coil.

Give it up already CCR, these people are obviously more Christian than the followers of your belief can ever hope to be.

Thoughts?

To sum up what happened afterwards, CCR tried ignoring Ozrat because he saw through his flamebait, Ozzy relentlessly kept on until he got a rise out of CCR, and what little merit this flamebait for a thread had to begin with was derailed.

Anyways, he did state that pentacostals were more "Christian" because they had more faith to do the shit they do, and that all other worshippers of the christian faith are just part of some "tomfoolery cult".

But, I don't want to leave this thread completely derailed and broken, so I'll attempt to make it something more intelligent than what it was originally meant to be, which was flamebait directed at a 16 year old.

If I was to follow you're logic Ozzy, then that lady who recently stoned her child to death because God told her to do it, or the islamic extremists who strap bombs onto their chests, or other churches who commit communal beatings on any member that goes a bit astray from the pastor's teachings, are being truly faithful, and we should all strive to reach their level of zeal.

Just because a person can work themselves up to a frothing hysteria, and put themselves in peril because they believe god will protect them, doesn't mean that they are more "Christian". I was taught that being Christian doesn't mean that if I believe fanatically in God, I'll be protected from anything, and that to prove this, I should jump in front of train, and it will stop. If the train proceeds to turn me into red mush however, it just means I wasn't faithful enough. That logic is eerily similar to the witch hunts of the 18th century. Granted, the example is a bit extreme, but the reasoning behind it is still the same.

Anyways, I was taught that being Christian is to be kind, compassionate, and helpful to others, just to name a few virtues. Even if I was an atheist, I would still be Catholic. Not only because of its teachings, but because it is also an important part of my culture. If it wasn't that the sole purpose of this thread was to incite emotions, I would probably be offended by what you said.

edit: I'm a slow typer, and I just noticed that several posts have passed me by so...

 

[Ancient Oldie]

Then how mature am I? Or for that matter, several other people around here. Hehe.

Just as mature as CCR. Ha, couldn't help it.

Anyways, it is good to see that teenagers such as youself and others are intelligent in their debates, and not just spouting off crap with little thought behind it. Also, keep in mind that CCR was often well behaved when I was around, it's just that his views were different from the norm around here. I didn't know that he was banned, nor the reasons for it, but keep in mind that when you have people constantly on your ass, it's only human to say extreme things that, in hindsight, you wouldn't completely agree with, but that were said solely to piss your antagonists off.

Anyways, it's nice to be back, although I don't think I will posting that much (although I'm sure I'll grudgingly get caught up with some topic). With a full-time job, full-time school, a relationship, a Cuban family, and a new found love for video games via the X-Box (it fucking rocks!!!), I don't really have time for lengthy posts. But anyways, it's great to listen to you guys ramble again!!!

 

[Sander]

Cono Sanders, talk about hyper-sensitivity. Welsh was dead-on target about the point I was trying make. I was making a generalization about ultra-liberalist views when it came to the spirituality comment, which would have been better applied to the comments that Ozrat was making in this thread. I just threw your name in there since the point I was trying to make was that at your age, I was as naively ideological in my views as you and others are right now (IMO ). You can quote me on that last assessment if you want, as even you have admitted to having views like that several times.

Ehehe. The only reason I got a bit pissed was that my name got mentioned there. For the rest, I don't really care.
Oh, you should really try to keep up with things. Look at a topic made by me somewhere in this forum (methinks it'll still be on the front page of General Discussion) and tell me whether my views are really that extreme.

On CCR: He got banned because he got really flaming and silly in another thread made by Ozrat, which was, as he claims, not flame-bait. It got out of hand, and he was temp-banned for a week. He should be back now, I think...

PS: Full-time job and full-time school? How the hell did you get twice as much time as me? Hehe. Have fun, and welcome back.