h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

A known troll, I hear. Hopefully the eds will sort it out soon.

This post has been removed.

Well, in my complaint I said the poster seems to be spamming. If a few more complaints are made by other folk, the Mods will have the evidence to do something.

Good idea. Watch this space. (ie the space immediately above HI's post)

>>"I notice she backs her assetion that religious people are less intelligent than the rest, by referring to herself! Really cool if you have the nuts to do it... "<<

I have to agree with you on this person. Its always sad to be knocking the people who are on my side, such as it is, but I'd wager that Vexen guy has been sniffing his own farts...

Something I thought of on my drive home, following lmn's comments about her gay friends...

EM Forster's quote (from 'Maurice', I think) along the lines of,
'Faced with a choice between betraying my friend and betraying my country, I hope I'd have the courage to choose my friend.'

If one's teachings tell one that homosexuality is wrong, and yet one observes a loving, gay friend who is leading a decent, happy life...isn't one forced to reject the teaching? Or, at least that part of the teaching*. Many Christians do, after all.




* I'm not trying to get you to reject your hope wholesale...although admittedly that would be a worthy aspiration.

(oops...that belongs on the other the other thread really. No mind! Maybe I'll cross-post...)

Hi Vicky,

[On failure to use condoms being counted as a failure of condoms]
>Why?That's bizarre.

Yes, in a way - but doctors (who are the ones supposed to be using this data) are interested in the actual effects of actions. In other words, better to recommend to a patient they use a condom and be safe than recommend they be abstinent and then scold them when they catch an STI. Or alternatively, an easier-to-use but not as reliable method of contraception might actually be more effective against pregnancy and STIs. So yes, I agree, it does sound odd, but there is some reason to it.

Either way, we need to compare like with like, to compare perfect abstainers with real-world condom users is no more realistic than to compare perfect condom-users with real-world abstainers.

>I'll check that link carefully, given that woman is a Satanist

I took the first link that came up from Google on 'religion divorce statistics'. Here's one where I've checked that the source is religiously neutral: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

>No doubt whatever *he's*a Bright!

Who?

>You made up some nonsense about how Galatians 3:28 means that Christian men don't have nads, and then claimed that was a Christian metaphorical interpretation. Giford, there are times when you lie like a rug. Admit it, even if only to yourself.

No, no, no, go back and read what I wrote. The context was that you were looking at a verse where Paul says men and women should be treated equally. I pointed out that many Christians think that men and women should not be treated equally (how many women priests are there in the Catholic church?) and therefore presumably think Paul is being metaphorical here. I specifically said that Paul *does not* literally mean that there is no difference between the sexes. My whole point rested on the fact that no-one thinks Galatians says Christian men don't have nads.

And it may surprise you to know this, but not only do I have no interest in lying, or holding views I need to lie to back up, but I go out of my way to check facts before I post them. (Not saying I'm perfect, but I try.)

>I was, as you know quoting him

Vicky! You were not!

I'm quite prepared to believe that you paraphrased what you though I said. The trouble is that somewhere along the way it's got garbled and not ended up meaning what I said. I didn't say anything of the sort for the simple reason that, to me, 'sex outside marriage' does not call up images of women hanging out in bars to get pregnant.

Ed has given you a link so you (and anyone else who cares) can go back and see what was written and by who. You are not fooling anyone other than yourself by contradicting what we can all see on our screens. Go back, have a look, and save yourself the embarrasment of continuing to claim this.



Fortunately, I get to end on a positive note.

>The woman who adopted my son was more than happy for me to meet him



Gif

(I love a happy ending!)

I must have skipped a few posts. I hadn't seen the one where I was accused of being an evil liar. No mind.

Thanks, Gif, for trying to clear up once more what said what to whom. I'll let the original post - and my handy link to it - stand. No need for a shitstorm from me.



Also on ending on a happy(ish) note, before I read some papers in preparation for running people's lives for them...yes, I agree. The desirable outcome is for fostered and adopted children to retain contact with their birth mother, *if that's what they want*. It's sad that life's not always like that. Fortunately there are skilled professionals (not me - I'm an amateur) who work damned hard for not nearly enough pay to sort out society's shit.

<>

You lied, in saying I'd posted it myself... I was quoting him, (or perhaps Bouncy) but whoever it was who said it originally, it wasn't me.

And I am very angry that you went trawling just far enough back to find where I first quoted it, but not far enough back to find where the original poster said it!

So, no hint of an apology for something I didn't do. I'll apologise when I am guilty, but I am really am not in this instance, and I know you know it.

Why don't you trawl back Vicky, because everyone else will probably think you're a liar if you don't.

<<http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brune...85?thread=5126320&skip=2080&show=20
Post 2096>>

The link Ed posted, from which you said..

<> someone else (vicky's << >&gt

"No, and you know it. My experience is that single parent families (especially if they have only one child) are very lonely. I was talking about people (mostly women) who decide to find someone in a bar, because fertility clinics are expensive, and they're lonely, and they want to have a child to have someone to love. That was *not* my experience!" vicky (my quotation marks)


Looks like your own words, because you usually put << >> in when you quote other people.

F19585?thread=5126320&skip=2040&show=20

post 2055


from Z - One day I'll pass my Membership


'Re Children outside of marriage
-some people despise marriage so much that perhaps they don't want anything to do with it. Some single people choose to start a family on their own and have casual sex as it's cheaper than a sperm donor. If a child is loved and wanted then what's the problem? '

Is that the post you were paraphrasing, Vicky?

<>

I am quite happy to compare like with like, but condoms fail to protect against certain STIs, not because of failure to use them properly, but because they don't work for some STIs. 's a fact.

<>

Okay.

>No doubt whatever *he's*a Bright!

Who? >>

Vexen. She's a she, AFAIK.

<>

You're deliberately trying to confuse the issue. Bad!

>I was, as you know quoting him

Vicky! You were not! >>

I was, and you can say otherwise til the cows come home. I am prepared to admit it might not have been you who said it orginally, but someone did.

<< I didn't say anything of the sort for the simple reason that, to me, 'sex outside marriage' does not call up images of women hanging out in bars to get pregnant. >>

Whoever said it, said it as one of many possible options.

<<. Go back, have a look, and save yourself the embarrasment of continuing to claim this. >>

Ed has stirred trouble, simply by giving a link to only part of the story... Typically for him!



>The woman who adopted my son was more than happy for me to meet him>>

She's a very nice woman and still a friend. She divorced her husband, who was completely paranoid about me, and so we became friends.

It is ironic. I had Chris adopted to save him from being brought up by a solo mother - and yet he was anyway, although he was almost grown when his 'parents' divorced.

<>

Of course they will! Calling me a liar is a popular sport around here, and the Underlines as Hoo would call them, get away with it forever.

I don't care, I haven't got time to go back and look, cos unlike some of you, I've got a life.

Y'all will think whatever you want anyway, you always do.

It doesn't matter. I wasn't quoting directly, in which case I'd have used the <> symbols, but using the guy's idea if not his words. *You* look, Ed won't...

<>

Yes, Caesar, it is! Thank you so much!

I didn't have the time to look myself, but bless you!

Vicky

I'd have to agree that you were paraphrasing someone else. I'll leave it to others to judge whether you coloured the paraphrase at all.

Thank you... I realise it'd have much easier for me and for all concerned had I said I was paraphrasing and not quoting. !

Vicky

A famous singer said " I don´t care if they talk badly about me, the important thing is that they are talking ABOUT ME!"

Is anyone here who would second that sentence?

Is anyone here ready to cool down and stop that creature of spoiling conversations?