Believing in God is Not a Bad Thing

[Anfauglir]

Respect is earned, if it is to have any meaning or value at all.

We probably have different definitions of respect.

I figured I needed to check on the insults you guys were posting and you know what, they were there just as I had thought they would be.  Just what the world needs another group of people thinking they're better than everybody else. Perfect! 

Yeah.  Imagine if there was a group of people who said "this is true", but thought they were too good to have to justify their beliefs with evidence. 

[Anfauglir]

You're only dishonest if you know you're being dishonest and I know you don't distinguish a difference.....

Is THAT why you are so scared to define what is acceptable evidence?  Because you are afraid that when you do you will have to admit how dishonest you are being?  Accepting one standard for yourself, but demanding something entirely different from anyone else?  That IS dishonest, Junebug, no matter how much you plead it is not.

I take a lot of pride in being honest and it's just uncalled for. 

Then prove it.  Answer the question about evidence, and prove that you are honest in the standards you demand of others, and the standards you accept for yourself.

Attacks on me doesn't make you right about anything and it's so apparent you're trying to decimate my character instead of my position. 

While we are on the subject of character, I have twice offered you a birth present for your grandson, and so far you haven't even had the grace to acknowledge it.  But maybe that passes for "character" where you come from, I don't know.

[natlegend]

June, one of my favourite sayings on this forum is "I don't know".[1] Unless it's used in the following context:

June: God exists
Atheist: How do you Know?
June: I don't know

1.	I've used it myself a few times, it's not that hard

[junebug72]

Any chance this thread will die anytime soon? Seems to me its just descended into insults on both sides.

I think its a detriment to the forum at this point.

I don't know, this isn't even close to the endless thread with the creepy pedophile, that took forever to die.

Who pissed in your cereal?  I think being compared to a pediphile is the lowest blow yet.  That ripped my heart right out of it's chest. You hurt me bad. My chest is pounding.  I really hope that made you feel special. 

This should be removed!!!

[junebug72]

Any chance this thread will die anytime soon? Seems to me its just descended into insults on both sides.

I think its a detriment to the forum at this point.

I don't know, this isn't even close to the endless thread with the creepy pedophile, that took forever to die.

I will work on forgiving you but it will take more time than usual. 

[screwtape]

I think being compared to a pediphile is the lowest blow yet.

Your reading skills have failed you.  Nobody compared you to a pedophile.  There was a very long, very controversial thread recently about child porn that went on forever.  She was comparing the length and tone of that thread with this one. 

[Quesi]

Any chance this thread will die anytime soon? Seems to me its just descended into insults on both sides.

I think its a detriment to the forum at this point.

I don't know, this isn't even close to the endless thread with the creepy pedophile, that took forever to die.

I only come to this thread occasionally, when I see a thumbs up or a thumbs down and I want to see what the discussion is about.

I agree with the original statement.  I don't see much going on here that is productive.  But I defer to the mods.

Why on earth did you give Lori a thumbs down on her comment? 

Perhaps, because this is just another example of something that you don't understand, and then you have a little tantrum?

Seriously, Lori was referring to another very very very long thread that happened on this forum, that ultimately got dumped in the bottomless pit section.  And, if I remember correctly, the thread happened prior to the time that Lori joined the forum.  She just dug around and did her research.

Edited for clarity.   

[junebug72]

June, one of my favourite sayings on this forum is "I don't know".[1] Unless it's used in the following context:

June: God exists
Atheist: How do you Know?
June: I don't know

1.	I've used it myself a few times, it's not that hard

You're funny. It is the best thing to say if you "don't know".  Everybody thinks they "know" the truth, when the truth is nobody "knows" anything, as far as beyond what we "know"now.  That's the way to peace, isn't it? To admit we just "don't know".

June says: I believe God exists.

I think being compared to a pediphile is the lowest blow yet.

Your reading skills have failed you.  Nobody compared you to a pedophile.  There was a very long, very controversial thread recently about child porn that went on forever.  She was comparing the length and tone of that thread with this one. 

It wasn't necessary.

This thread wouldn't have been so long if I hadn't of spent so much time defending myself against your insults. That's what half this thread is.

My reading skills haven't failed me.  This thread is being compared to a pediphiliacal post and the content is not the same.  It was meant to arouse and it did. My point is, it's disrespectful to all the thoughts and ideas displayed on this thread including yours.

To Quesi,

I don't think trying to forgive someone that has hurt you is a tantrum.

[junebug72]

Respect is earned, if it is to have any meaning or value at all.

We probably have different definitions of respect.

I figured I needed to check on the insults you guys were posting and you know what, they were there just as I had thought they would be.  Just what the world needs another group of people thinking they're better than everybody else. Perfect! 

Yeah.  Imagine if there was a group of people who said "this is true", but thought they were too good to have to justify their beliefs with evidence.

Most believers think that existence is proof. I said most.  Nobody wants someone else to tell them what to believe. 

[Anfauglir]

Nobody wants someone else to tell them what to believe.

Hmm.  Not sure exactly how much experience with mankind you have.  In my experience, people are only too pleased to be told what they should believe - provided its done with a degree of subtlety. 

Even telling people flat out "you must believe this" doesn't rate a guaranteed "get stuffed" in response.  Most organised religion is based on telling people just that: "you must believe this"....and I don't see church attendances plummeting down to zero all round the world.  Millions (billions?) of people are only too happy to be told precisely what to believe.  I know you have a beef with organised religion, so I'd have thought that this would have been one of the reasons - that they exploit people's desire to be told what to think and believe?

Maybe its just reinforcement of belief I'm thinking of there though.  I can see that being told outright, or subty, to believe something quite contrary to one's own beliefs, would lead to a forceful rejection of the proffered alternative.  I often find that when the proffered belief is rejected, the person who was offering it will frequently then respond with patronising comments - of the "your mind just isn't open enough to believe", or with abuse "I should have known better than to try to tell the truth to someone as stupid as you". 

The people taking that line often cannot even see that just by offering the conflicting belief, they ARE implicitly telling the other person what to believe: the simple stating of a position, especially when accompanied by asseetions of the rightness of that belief, implies that the other person is wrong by definition.  Perhaps not as strong as a "you MUST believe this", but certainly a strong "you SHOULD believe this".

[junebug72]

You're only dishonest if you know you're being dishonest and I know you don't distinguish a difference.....

Is THAT why you are so scared to define what is acceptable evidence?  Because you are afraid that when you do you will have to admit how dishonest you are being?  Accepting one standard for yourself, but demanding something entirely different from anyone else?  That IS dishonest, Junebug, no matter how much you plead it is not.

I take a lot of pride in being honest and it's just uncalled for. 

Then prove it.  Answer the question about evidence, and prove that you are honest in the standards you demand of others, and the standards you accept for yourself.

Attacks on me doesn't make you right about anything and it's so apparent you're trying to decimate my character instead of my position. 

While we are on the subject of character, I have twice offered you a birth present for your grandson, and so far you haven't even had the grace to acknowledge it.  But maybe that passes for "character" where you come from, I don't know.

What have I "demanded" from anybody? Wait I have too, I demanded someone to quit saying I was mentally ill.  I have lived up to that standard. 

So since I haven't demanded anything from you, your argument about my honesty is squashed.  Seems to me the only person demanding things round here is you.

I had no idea of a birth present from you.  Did you think about that?  No, you went straight to "character flaw".  Please tell me where to find my grandson's present so I can receive it. Thank You for the thought.

[Anfauglir]

You're only dishonest if you know you're being dishonest and I know you don't distinguish a difference.....

Is THAT why you are so scared to define what is acceptable evidence?  Because you are afraid that when you do you will have to admit how dishonest you are being?  Accepting one standard for yourself, but demanding something entirely different from anyone else?  That IS dishonest, Junebug, no matter how much you plead it is not.

What have I "demanded" from anybody? Wait I have too, I demanded someone to quit saying I was mentally ill.  I have lived up to that standard. 

So since I haven't demanded anything from you, your argument about my honesty is squashed.  Seems to me the only person demanding things round here is you.

You demanded evidence of John's socks before you would believe they existed, did you not?

[Anfauglir]

I had no idea of a birth present from you.  Did you think about that?  No, you went straight to "character flaw".  Please tell me where to find my grandson's present so I can receive it. Thank You for the thought.

I've offered it twice.  I'm fairly sure you responded to other parts of the posts the offers were made it.  I'll check back and quote them - but right now I'm off to do the school run.

[junebug72]

Nobody wants someone else to tell them what to believe.

Hmm.  Not sure exactly how much experience with mankind you have.  In my experience, people are only too pleased to be told what they should believe - provided its done with a degree of subtlety. 

Even telling people flat out "you must believe this" doesn't rate a guaranteed "get stuffed" in response.  Most organised religion is based on telling people just that: "you must believe this"....and I don't see church attendances plummeting down to zero all round the world.  Millions (billions?) of people are only too happy to be told precisely what to believe.  I know you have a beef with organised religion, so I'd have thought that this would have been one of the reasons - that they exploit people's desire to be told what to think and believe?

Maybe its just reinforcement of belief I'm thinking of there though.  I can see that being told outright, or subty, to believe something quite contrary to one's own beliefs, would lead to a forceful rejection of the proffered alternative.  I often find that when the proffered belief is rejected, the person who was offering it will frequently then respond with patronising comments - of the "your mind just isn't open enough to believe", or with abuse "I should have known better than to try to tell the truth to someone as stupid as you". 

The people taking that line often cannot even see that just by offering the conflicting belief, they ARE implicitly telling the other person what to believe: the simple stating of a position, especially when accompanied by asseetions of the rightness of that belief, implies that the other person is wrong by definition.  Perhaps not as strong as a "you MUST believe this", but certainly a strong "you SHOULD believe this".

You're missing the point.  If your beliefs are not the same as someone else's, you should not try to cram your beliefs down their throat.  You should not judge them.  You should trust that God will take care of it and stay out of the way.  Christians chose which path to follow you can not tell them that's not right.  All this I'm right and you're wrong nonsense has got to stop.  God is a mystery.  If God's watching I don't think God approves.

I had no idea of a birth present from you.  Did you think about that?  No, you went straight to "character flaw".  Please tell me where to find my grandson's present so I can receive it. Thank You for the thought.

I've offered it twice.  I'm fairly sure you responded to other parts of the posts the offers were made it.  I'll check back and quote them - but right now I'm off to do the school run.

Thanks, don't go to any trouble.  I missed it, so sorry.  Be safe.

[Anfauglir]

I had no idea of a birth present from you.  Did you think about that?  No, you went straight to "character flaw".  Please tell me where to find my grandson's present so I can receive it. Thank You for the thought.

Yes indeed - I offered it twice:

I do have a dog in this race, my grandson is due 06/26. My son is just starting out and it's hard as hell to make ends meet out here.

Congratulations!  Do you have a PayPal account you would be willing to share?  I'd like to send you a birthing gift (naturally I won't call it a christening present or anything like that) to help his start in life.

A few pages ago, I offered you a financial gift for your grandchild's birth, to help their start in life.  You didn't respond.  I just want to say that that offer still stands if you wish to take it up.

It makes me wonder if what I said here is true:

I suspect that you don't actually read my posts properly anymore Junebug.  If that's the case I'd appreciate you letting me know, as I have been wasting a lot of time preparing careful responses to you.

...that you are not, in fact, properly reading the posts I make to you.  That you are just skimming them rather than taking the time to register what I'm writing.  For you to have twice missed an offer of a birth gift for you grandson makes me suspect that is exactly what you do.  IS there any point in me taking time on responding to you?

[Anfauglir]

Nobody wants someone else to tell them what to believe.

Hmm.  Not sure exactly how much experience with mankind you have.  In my experience, people are only too pleased to be told what they should believe - provided its done with a degree of subtlety. 

Even telling people flat out "you must believe this" doesn't rate a guaranteed "get stuffed" in response.  Most organised religion is based on telling people just that: "you must believe this"....and I don't see church attendances plummeting down to zero all round the world.  Millions (billions?) of people are only too happy to be told precisely what to believe.  I know you have a beef with organised religion, so I'd have thought that this would have been one of the reasons - that they exploit people's desire to be told what to think and believe?

Maybe its just reinforcement of belief I'm thinking of there though.  I can see that being told outright, or subty, to believe something quite contrary to one's own beliefs, would lead to a forceful rejection of the proffered alternative.  I often find that when the proffered belief is rejected, the person who was offering it will frequently then respond with patronising comments - of the "your mind just isn't open enough to believe", or with abuse "I should have known better than to try to tell the truth to someone as stupid as you". 

The people taking that line often cannot even see that just by offering the conflicting belief, they ARE implicitly telling the other person what to believe: the simple stating of a position, especially when accompanied by asseetions of the rightness of that belief, implies that the other person is wrong by definition.  Perhaps not as strong as a "you MUST believe this", but certainly a strong "you SHOULD believe this".

You're missing the point.  If your beliefs are not the same as someone else's, you should not try to cram your beliefs down their throat.  You should not judge them.  You should trust that God will take care of it and stay out of the way.  Christians chose which path to follow you can not tell them that's not right.  All this I'm right and you're wrong nonsense has got to stop.  God is a mystery.  If God's watching I don't think God approves.

And bosh - it all went straight over your head, didn't it?  I don't believe in your god Junebug (or any god, come to that).  So did you take your own words to heart, and not judge me?  Nope.  Straight in with the "god does not approve" business.  Straight in with the "trust in god".  How is that NOT you telling me that you are right and I am wrong?  You proselytise your faith just as much as any Christian, with the ever-implied (and often implicit) criticism of my beliefs.

As the Bible might put it - can you see the beam in your own eye, Junebug?  Or are you so oblivious that you'll deny one could even exist?

[Star Stuff]

I think being compared to a pediphile is the lowest blow yet.

Your reading skills have failed you.  Nobody compared you to a pedophile.  There was a very long, very controversial thread recently about child porn that went on forever.  She was comparing the length and tone of that thread with this one.

I've experienced this with Junebug too.  She takes an analogy one might be giving, as a direct assertion about herself. This, coupled with the fact that the entire time she's been here, she's not displayed one iota of humility by saying something like:  "You know, that's a good point, I stand corrected, my position is mistaken." 

I suggest that this demonstrates that Junebug suffers from a massive, muleheaded ego, covered with a honey glaze.

[screwtape]

Your reading skills have failed you.  Nobody compared you to a pedophile.  There was a very long, very controversial thread recently about child porn that went on forever.  She was comparing the length and tone of that thread with this one. 

It wasn't necessary.

That is irrelevant.

This thread wouldn't have been so long if I hadn't of spent so much time defending myself against your insults. That's what half this thread is.

It's not.  Half this thread is you defending yourself against perceived insults where none were intended and you misunderstanding other members.

My reading skills haven't failed me.

They have. Lori and Miles are both xians and have been more or less on your side the whole time, as I recall.

You are wrong and you are being obstinate about it.  You seem determined to feel insulted about pretty much everything anyone says here.  I cannot help that.  All I can do is try to offer an explanation to you.  I cannot make you understand it or accept it or feel differently.

This thread is being compared to a pediphiliacal post and the content is not the same.

No.  It is being compared to a long thread where the conversation degenerated that happened to have a guy who claimed to be a pedophile[1] posting in it.  That's it.

It was meant to arouse and it did.

It wasn't.  That is your own imagination doing that.

My point is, it's disrespectful to all the thoughts and ideas displayed on this thread including yours.

Then why do I not feel insulted?  Your point is a conclusion derived from a faulty premise.

1.	whether he actually was a pedophile is up for debate

[jdawg70]

Your use of the words 'opinion' and 'know' is a bit convoluted.  Actually, it's really just the use of the word 'know'...perhaps you mean to say something like:
"Does the body not release the spirit when it passes.  I think it does, I have felt it."
That jives a little better with a "I base my opinion, and that's all it is an opinion" view.

Yo dawg,  You most definitely have the right to not believe I experienced something spiritual and beautiful at the passing of my loved ones. Those were all very significant experiences in my life, and I think it most cold hearted of you to belittle it this way. You know I could take your sentences move some words around and twist it. I meant to say I know, and I stand by that.

June, one of my favourite sayings on this forum is "I don't know".[1] Unless it's used in the following context:

June: God exists
Atheist: How do you Know?
June: I don't know

1.	I've used it myself a few times, it's not that hard

You're funny. It is the best thing to say if you "don't know".  Everybody thinks they "know" the truth, when the truth is nobody "knows" anything, as far as beyond what we "know"now.  That's the way to peace, isn't it? To admit we just "don't know".

I'm beginning to think that Junebug doesn't read what Junebug posts.

[Jag]

Any chance this thread will die anytime soon? Seems to me its just descended into insults on both sides.

I think its a detriment to the forum at this point.

I don't know, this isn't even close to the endless thread with the creepy pedophile, that took forever to die.

Who pissed in your cereal?  I think being compared to a pediphile is the lowest blow yet.  That ripped my heart right out of it's chest. You hurt me bad. My chest is pounding.  I really hope that made you feel special. 

This should be removed!!!

THIS is exactly why this thread has dragged on for 35 pages. jb, you completely misunderstood what LoriPinkAngel was saying and immediately went to a very bad place . You keep mistaking things that are not personal for insults. In no way did she compare you to a pedophile - I can't even begin to imagine that you got that out of the actual words she posted.

You need to calm yourself and slow down. Read what is actually said, respond to what is actually said, and ideally, respond with words that are very clear and specific to the point you are making. It's not personal.

[jaimehlers]

It wasn't necessary.

Junebug, half the problem is that you're getting way too defensive about things.  The other half is that you take your first reading as what was meant, and trying to get you to realize that it's not is often an exercise in frustration and/or futility.

This thread wouldn't have been so long if I hadn't of spent so much time defending myself against your insults. That's what half this thread is.

Actually, it would have been, for the simple fact that you keep making assertions about this god you believe in that you can't actually base on evidence, just feelings.  As a result, you keep getting asked to provide that evidence, and keep not doing so.  That's why it's been going on and it's why it's going to keep going on - because the people here have had to deal with this sort of approach before, and aren't inclined to let people slide on it.

My reading skills haven't failed me.  This thread is being compared to a pediphiliacal post and the content is not the same.  It was meant to arouse and it did. My point is, it's disrespectful to all the thoughts and ideas displayed on this thread including yours.

I was involved in the former thread, so I can safely say that you have this completely wrong (and this is a good example of what I meant by you taking your first reading as the full meaning).  The only commonalities between the two threads are the sheer length and the tenacity with which the position was defended, so you have no call to get offended in the first place.

[Jag]

I think being compared to a pediphile is the lowest blow yet.

Your reading skills have failed you.  Nobody compared you to a pedophile.  There was a very long, very controversial thread recently about child porn that went on forever.  She was comparing the length and tone of that thread with this one. 

It wasn't necessary.

Says who? LoriPinkAngel was simply making an observation. YOU are putting a nasty spin on what was said - whether you realize it or not, LoriPinkAngel, who is generally quite kindhearted, was subtly suggesting to US that we let this thread die - if anything, she was trying to HELP you. YOU somehow turned that into her comparing you to a pedophile. WTF?

This thread wouldn't have been so long if I hadn't of spent so much time defending myself against your insults. That's what half this thread is.

And yet, you keep coming back for more, while failing to get anywhere, and refusing to read what is being said to you..

My reading skills haven't failed me. 

They most certainly have - you appear to be finding insults where none exist. That's a comprehension failure.

This thread is being compared to a pediphiliacal post and the content is not the same.  It was meant to arouse and it did. My point is, it's disrespectful to all the thoughts and ideas displayed on this thread including yours.

BOLD mine.
Since you are the ONLY person who interpreted that remark that way, it seems likely that you are wrong. If you had taken a moment to breath before putting the completely wrong spin on her remark, perhaps you would have understood what she was actually saying.

To Quesi,

I don't think trying to forgive someone that has hurt you is a tantrum.

Again, missing the point entirely. There is nothing for you to forgive, except perhaps yourself for jumping (again!Shades of Astreja!) to the wrong conclusion , followed by refusing to admit that perhaps you made a mistake.

LPA is damn near the LAST PERSON here who would just throw out a random insult like that. If you were participating in the forum, rather than confining yourself to this limited area to preach the Gospel of Junebug72, you would already know that about her.

Is WWGHA your first internet discussion forum? I'm not talking about commenting on social media, or on an article posted somewhere, I'm referring to sites like this, that exist for the specific purpose of hosting ongoing discussions. Have you been a member of other forums with this kind of structure?

[Nam]

Junebug's worse than idiot. She's a drone of nothingness.

She's not even a wall to bang your head against because there's nothing there.

-Nam

[Seppuku]

Quote from: screwtape on Yesterday at 12:35:41

    Quote from: junebug72 on Yesterday at 12:24:42

        I think being compared to a pediphile is the lowest blow yet.


    Your reading skills have failed you.  Nobody compared you to a pedophile.  There was a very long, very controversial thread recently about child porn that went on forever.  She was comparing the length and tone of that thread with this one.


It wasn't necessary.

This thread wouldn't have been so long if I hadn't of spent so much time defending myself against your insults. That's what half this thread is.

My reading skills haven't failed me.  This thread is being compared to a pediphiliacal post and the content is not the same.  It was meant to arouse and it did. My point is, it's disrespectful to all the thoughts and ideas displayed on this thread including yours.

In Lori's defense, making a comparison to you and paedophilia in an attempt to insult or berate you would be really out of character. Every post of her's I've read have been pretty chilled out and I've not seen her resort to pettiness or insults and I'm pretty such she's been around when there's been members who have really drived people's patience to the point when people (like myself) who tend not to lose their cool, to lose their cool. I think Screw is right in that you have misread it. I see no issue in admitting that, it's the internet, you can't always get tone right and it's not always obvious. I mean, I'm guilty of it and I've found people have misunderstood things I've said and in turn I've had to explain myself save offending somebody.

For more context, we used to have a resident paedophile, but he wasn't somebody who'd go out and molest a kid, but he came out and was forward about his feelings, thoughts and urges which created a huge discussion about paedophilia. He tried to defend his position, for him it was a natural feeling. There were of course 2 sides and how the discussion panned out was very much like this one. As Jag says, Lori was making an observation about the direction of this thread.

Perhaps you could make a case, "well, you're still comparing me to a paedophile", but you weren't compared to the guy and if you were, it doesn't matter so long as you're no being compared on grounds of paedophilia, which you weren't. A particular thread that went in the same direction was mentioned as part of an observation of where this thread is going. If Lori wanted to compare it to a thread to make an observation, what would you propose she should have done? Omitted the fact the thread was about paedophilia? Many of us familiar with the thread might not know what she's referring to. Find another thread? She might not know of any others, I can only remember one other, but it's a much older thread many newer members aren't familiar with and was before Lori's time (the thread was actually started by a guy who thought it was okay to rape non-Muslim women, so I'm not sure what's worse, regardless he was notorius for endless threads). But why should she avoid a comparison because the topic discussed was paedophilia? What if it had been about a Logical Positivism? I am sure you wouldn't think somebody was comparing you to Wittgenstein or comparing you to a Logical Positivist. It seems only because the topic was about a taboo subject that it was deemed to be a comparison to you and an insulting one at that.

Maybe it was a mistake. By all means, they happen. I just hope you can recognise it, save wrongly accusing somebody of being a bad sport.

[magicmiles]

Can somebody tell me what purpose this thread now serves? There has been no (or very, very little) shift in perspective, it is over 1000 replies and more posts than not now have some sort of insult, either veiled or blatant.

If my understanding of precendent on this forum is anywhere accurate, this thread should be locked down.

I don't think anybody is doing JB any favours by continuing to engage her. At the very least can people please reflect upon their motivation for continuing to debate her.

I don't want to act like some sort of pseudo-moderator, it's just my strong opinion.

[jdawg70]

Can somebody tell me what purpose this thread now serves? There has been no (or very, very little) shift in perspective, it is over 1000 replies and more posts than not now have some sort of insult, either veiled or blatant.

If my understanding of precendent on this forum is anywhere accurate, this thread should be locked down.

I don't think anybody is doing JB any favours by continuing to engage her. At the very least can people please reflect upon their motivation for continuing to debate her.

I don't want to act like some sort of pseudo-moderator, it's just my strong opinion.

Yeah I more or less agree that this thread is pretty pointless intellectually, and all semblance to discussion of the OP is lost.  That being said I suppose this thread serves as a landing point to openly vent frustration; some aspects of this thread have been, quite literally, mind-boggling.  That valve has to vent some of that mental steam.

Also, I don't think every post has been merely insult.  I think some of the members here really, truly want Junebug to understand some of her mistakes.  That seems pretty laudable to me.

Still betting on heat death @ page 42...
(but wouldn't cry if earlier)

[magicmiles]

I think some of the members here really, truly want Junebug to understand some of her mistakes.  That seems pretty laudable to me.

Of course, I agree. But I think a line needs to be drawn. Again, just my opinion, but I hope the moderators consider it.

[HAL]

Of course, I agree. But I think a line needs to be drawn. Again, just my opinion, but I hope the moderators consider it.

Quote from February 09, 2013 on another forum,

Hello XXX members

I've decided to stop posting here. Too much else going on, and I don't feel I am using my spare time very wisely at the moment. I also post too often from work, which isn't fair to my employer.

I had this same problem at WWGHA sadly.

[magicmiles]

What's your point Hal?