David,

*>it makes me think that I do so fervently wish there was a god though. I have a lot to thank her/him/it for.<*

Now you're starting to get it! (It's not a matter of thinking, it's a matter of feeling. Huurrah.)

well david
you showed him

perry exposed at last
laughs out loud
lol

but

im more laughing ..at from now on
religion in schools.. is assurd funding

and any FUTURE*fed funding [including aithiest fundings][dings]
must have a law passed..or no fun...dsss..you shot ya own foot..

your so clever
too clever

Hello again, Mr Nicholls. Let's see what you've got for me this time.

>>You do seem incapable of handling a cogent conversation without trying to show you are a superior being with a lot of balls & penis waving but you ain’t much good at that either.<<

Huzzah! Go straight for the manhood, that'll show 'im you mean business. It did make me wonder for a moment what your idea of a "cogent conversation" might be, though, since you spend so much of your time here slagging off anyone who disagrees with you. Any thoughts?

>>...self-aggrandising witlessness without a purpose<<

No, sorry. That was far too slack.

You know as well as I do that however self-aggrandizingly witless you may view my commentary, it most certainly has a purpose. Which is to open your eyes to the damage you are causing by turning atheism into a form of travelling circus, complete with its own minstrels, clowns and performing animals.

>>Possibly better to let you have your little hissy-spits about nothing and I’ll just enjoy the entertainment.<<

Even slacker.

If these "hissy-spits" were indeed about nothing, then you wouldn't need to touch that keyboard. But the very fact you are still here and swatting away indicates that somewhere, just possibly, the message is taking hold.

>>Nearly forgot, I don’t think you’re striving for anything beyond satisfying your ego<<

That's just space-filler. Possibly you exhausted your venom in the earlier attack on my machismo, but you felt it necessary to bulk up on the insults. The reality is that I do, in fact, consider your posturing on behalf of atheism to be somewhat offensive, and will continue to take the opportunity, when it arises, to tell you so.

So, only a four out of ten for this effort, Mr Nicholls. Takes me back to 1978, when Denis Healy observed that being attacked by Geoffrey Howe was like being savaged by a dead sheep.

By all means, put me back on your list, being ignored doesn't faze me. But don't for one moment kid yourself that this is about me.

Ah, Pericles,

A bit touchy on the balls & penis part…interesting :)

I see I finally got through to you. Didn’t your mother ever tell you not to put your fingers into the fire or you will get burnt.

“Which is to open your eyes to the damage you are causing by turning atheism into a form of travelling circus, complete with its own minstrels, clowns and performing animals.”

That sentence is like quickly pulling your fingers out of the fire without thinking. Best you explain the damage I’m doing and to whom.

“But the very fact you are still here and swatting away indicates that somewhere, just possibly, the message is taking hold.”

You wish and there is no real message - only words. Swatting is an overstatement. Passing the time in my spare moments is more accurate. Sometimes I play Spider Solitaire and at others my amusement is you.

“The reality is that I do, in fact, consider your posturing on behalf of atheism to be somewhat offensive, and will continue to take the opportunity, when it arises, to tell you so.”

Really…offensive. Hell! I have got you into a fluster, haven’t I? Or should I say you have only yourself to blame for these ridiculous outbursts. Flame-burn, remember that?

You are not acting as though you have been “savaged by a dead sheep”. More like running from a pack of wolves.

I don’t need you to tell me when you go back on the list. I’m quite capable of working that out for myself.

Not all about you, Pericles? Well, sorry, but you must be reading a script that written for you and not the audience. Try looking at the one the whole cast is using. And I don’t mean the predatory fawning cast either.

David

Still tap-dancing, I see.

>>...there is no real message - only words<<

If it were possible to use other means to get the point across, I'd be sure to give it a try. But right now, words are the only tools at my disposal.

The message is, however hard you may try to dodge it, that your Atheist Convention was a perfect own-goal, created by your turning it into a hyped-up, pseudo-religious happy-clappy event. You disagree with this point of view. Of course you do. You take it personally - as indeed you should - and lash out like a kiddie whose toys have been taken away.

This is clear from the way you have tried to move the discussion away from the Convention, and the somewhat sickly claims you then made about its effect on people, and try to deflect me with a few petty insults.

Suit yourself. If you cannot see how ridiculous your position is, then that is a problem you will have to sort out on your own. But just to underline that this is not about me, I'll sign off with a quote from Poirot, earlier in this thread.

"Can't you see that your rhetoric describing the whole unfolding atheist circus sounds identical to the religious shenanigans over which you regularly delight in pouring scorn."

Pericles,

I never realises how effective I was at bringing out the goose in others. Seems I have a previously unknown talent in that. Thanks for being the goose that showed me.

Have to agree that words are your only tool. My suggestion is to use the appropriate tool for the correct job. Your difficultly with that is obvious.

I would have assumed, but it looks like I was wrong, that you understood that hyperbolic prattle without substance is the identifier of some kind of prejudice. This fits your words and style like a glove.

As you did not attend the 2012 Global Atheist Convention and have made no comment on the videos from it up on Youtube here: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7C0CA45F60FD44C7&feature=plcp
one can only assume you are talking out of your arse if you conclude that it was a “hyped-up, pseudo-religious happy-clappy event”. To draw that conclusion is more than inaccurate, it is well beyond preposterous.

Have you viewed the videos? What did you think? Which part of them fits your immature evaluation of the GAC? Which part was “hyped-up?”

Now is a chance to use your word “tools” in answering those questions. They are simple enough.

You might consider you are an operator par excellence in disguising that it really is all about you, but if you have fooled anyone else into thinking that it is not, well, you have fooled them.

The use a quote from Piorot is very convincing…Not!

That I pour scorn over religion is rubbish. If one of you fine gentlemen would like to give examples of that scorn, I would appreciate it.

Please look up the word scorn in the dictionary first. Criticism of what is wrong with religion is not scorn.

David