Sam F is back

[Sam F]

"Ah, but I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'll

fart

in your face
So love me, love me
Love me, I'm a liberal"

That'll work!

[Glen Longino]

I only wish Sam would be honest with us.

[isla]

"Ah, but I've grown older and wiser...

I only wish Sam would be honest with us.

Well, half of the above statement is true

[Peerie Maa]

Your condescension and sanctimony signals that you are well above playing the victim card,.

Really? Sam F played the victim so hard after his time in Banned Camp that he wore the spots off.
Then, when he got no traction Sam F took a voluntary time out.

[Paul Pless]

It's quiet sad

if only

[oznabrag]

I just opened this thread to say that I am disappointed in the lot of you.

Especially George..

We’re supposed to be past this sort of racial ratfreakery.

What difference does it make if Sam F is black?

[Kevin T]

Really? Sam F played the victim so hard after his time in Banned Camp that he wore the spots off.
Then, when he got no traction Sam F took a voluntary time out.

I was trying to be ironical. I should have ladled on a few.

Apologies for any confusion I may have caused.

[Peerie Maa]

I was trying to be ironical. I should have ladled on a few.

Apologies for any confusion I may have caused.

No wuccas.
I am a bit literal and don't do irony well.

You should see the state of my shirts.

[bluedog225]

I just opened this thread to say that I am disappointed in the lot of you.

Especially George..

We’re supposed to be past this sort of racial ratfreakery.

What difference does it make if Sam F is black?

[three characters]

[George Jung]

Interesting to 'contrast and compare'.

The 'first' go-round that I recall - God vs Darwin? - Sam F was a bit more subtle, playful even - and capable of sucking in the whole bilge, for hundreds of posts - and seemingly unflappable.

Now this; different in every way. Likely a 'sign of our times'.

[George Jung]

I just opened this thread to say that I am disappointed in the lot of you.

Especially George..

We’re supposed to be past this sort of racial ratfreakery.

What difference does it make if Sam F is black?

And here ya have it - a 'masters class' on how ya do 'the bilge'.

[Keith Wilson]

So after digging around in the dusty archives, here are some of the old threads if anyone is interested:
- The original 2004 'God vs Darwin' thread,all 25 pages and 875 posts.
- The follow-up thread, 'A possibly civil discussion of evolution.' from 2006 with a brief revival in 2013, 43 pages, 1478 posts, possibly the best of the lot.
- Another one from '06, 'Is God compatible with Darwin?' George. sure did like to stir the pot.
- And 'Evolution vs. Intelligent Design', which went bad pretty quickly, with a couple of genuine creationists, and SamF using up a lot of electrons.

I won't bother to look for the ones with whatshisname the young-earth creationist. Definitely not worth the trouble.

It's interesting how many of the same folks are still here. I had forgotten about Dennis Marshall, though; he was a very good guy indeed, but he hasn't posted since '04.

[TomF]

Damn you, Keith. You oughta know that necromancy is a sin!

[Keith Wilson]

Damn you, Keith. You oughta know that necromancy is a sin!

At worst, a huge waste of time. Dennis Marshall's stuff is worth reading, though. And any illusions I may have had that Sam was all that different fifteen years ago have mostly evaporated.

[oznabrag]

And here ya have it - a 'masters class' on how ya do 'the bilge'.

Thanks, Doc.

It’s nice to be appreciated !

[Sam F]

So after digging around in the dusty archives, here are some of the old threads if anyone is interested:
- The original 2004 'God vs Darwin' thread,all 25 pages and 875 posts.
- The follow-up thread, 'A possibly civil discussion of evolution.' from 2006 with a brief revival in 2013, 43 pages, 1478 posts, possibly the best of the lot.
- Another one from '06, 'Is God compatible with Darwin?' George. sure did like to stir the pot.
- And 'Evolution vs. Intelligent Design', which went bad pretty quickly, with a couple of genuine creationists, and SamF using up a lot of electrons.

I won't bother to look for the ones with whatshisname the young-earth creationist. Definitely not worth the trouble.

It's interesting how many of the same folks are still here. I had forgotten about Dennis Marshall, though; he was a very good guy indeed, but he hasn't posted since '04.

Tis a pity you didn't use your "necromancy" to resurrect this evicence before your spurious "respect" the Pope by not using his former name shtick:
This following came after an extensive quote from the Divine Comedy in the "Limbo goes to Hell" thread.

Sam F
06-02-2007, 05:33 PM
... "Can Popes fail too?"
You may have noticed that Dante, writing around 1300 A.D., was quite familiar with less-than-holy Popes.
So your question was not only answered, but that you should have even asked it is shown to be the product of prejudice and not knowledge. You're just a bit tardy, many hundreds of years late in fact, in not noticing what Catholics actually think on the subject.


Nicholas is the simonist pope who, because he is upside down in a hole, mistakenly believes Dante to be Pope Boniface VIII, somehow present in the third pit several years before his time (Inf. 19.52-7). When the confusion is cleared up, Nicholas informs Dante that he foresees the damnation (for simony) of not only Boniface VIII but Pope Clement V as well...

There you go. Popes in Hell for simony. That's Catholic "respect" for Popes, eh? BTW, one may commit that sin for rewards other than money. Like selling out holy things for public acclaim and approval for instance. Not that it would have any relevance for Bergoglio...

[Keith Wilson]

OK, fine, maybe you didn't say that. It was a long time ago, I certainly don't want to bother searching the archives, and memory is certainly fallible. I have no problem at all calling them Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger or Jorge Mario Bergoglio, rather than by their titles. It's not the slightest surprise that you like what the current pope is doing less than his predecessor.

[George.]

OTOH, "Pope Rat" really ticked some people off...

[Keith Wilson]

Maybe we could compromise on 'Ratzi'?

[Kevin T]

OTOH, "Pope Rat" really ticked some people off...

I think you've got the wrong thread, we're trying to elect a Pope Rat down in the BROTM thread. Right now Fredz is leading the rat pack with two votes cast.

[George.]

Wait, wait, BROTM is the King of Rats, reigning for just one month. The Pope of the Rats is a lifetime appointment!

[Sam F]

OK, fine, maybe you didn't say that. It was a long time ago,...

Yep. Never said it. Never thought it. Thanks for the "maybe".though.
Perhaps you might manage a bit of allowance that my memory isn't too bad and that I know what I think.
I don't just use anything handy to attack people I don't agree with. That's a leftist tactic and I'm no leftist.

[George Jung]

You were doing so well until ya fell into 'leftist' tactics. So wrong; so useless.

Perhaps you can contrast/compare to some of the garbage coming from 'rightists'. Shouldn't be too difficult; it's everywhere.... if you're being honest.

[Keith Wilson]

Right. 'Using anything handy to attack people we don't agree with' is exclusively a leftist tactic; we patented it, and will cheerfully sue the soul out of anyone who tries to do anything like that without a current paid-up leftist membership card.

[sonofswen]

I was just thinking...when did Catholics..some of them, turn into Evangelicals?

For Trump, Conservative Catholics Are The New Evangelicals

October 26, 20205:00 AM ET
https://www.npr.org/2020/10/26/92665...w-evangelicals

maybe sam has some insight into this....

[Keith Wilson]

Just as Protestantism has an evangelical wing and a mainline wing, the Roman Catholic church has conservative and liberal factions. The difference is that Protestants tend to be divided into different denominations - ELCA and Missouri Synod Lutherans, American Baptists and Southern Baptists - a partial exception being the United Methodists, who reabsorbed the southern wing that had split off at the time of the Civil War. The Catholics are all in the same church, but have nearly as many disagreements.

[Tom Montgomery]

.
Is Sam F one of them Trumpkin-type conservative Catholics?

[Keith Wilson]

You betcha.

[Tom Montgomery]

.
ewww... yuck.

[TomF]

.
Is Sam F one of them Trumpkin-type conservative Catholics?

Well to be fair, Sam had this approach solid before Trump stopped banging porn actresses and tried out for Washington.

[Keith Wilson]

Well, maybe I should say 'sure does look like it from here'. I could be wrong; Sam's surprised me before. But I know which way I'd bet.

Interesting chart:

[Peerie Maa]

^ Well, that would indicate that white Christians are not.
Immoral or amoral, but lacking a moral compass, as Sam would have it.

[oznabrag]

Maybe we could compromise on 'Ratzi'?

Or Ratso?

[Chris249]

Yep. Never said it. Never thought it. Thanks for the "maybe".though.
Perhaps you might manage a bit of allowance that my memory isn't too bad and that I know what I think.
I don't just use anything handy to attack people I don't agree with. That's a leftist tactic and I'm no leftist.

No, it's not a "leftist tactic" and it is untruthful of you to claim that it is. For example, a right winger on another forum calling me a "Commie %$#@&" when I may be a %$#@ but I'm certainly NOT a Communist. It was merely a handy insult that he used to attack a person he didn't agree with.

If you are going to be a Christian conservative, shouldn't you avoid bearing false witness by making incorrect claims like that?

[Sam F]

You were doing so well until ya fell into 'leftist' tactics. So wrong; so useless.

Perhaps you can contrast/compare to some of the garbage coming from 'rightists'. Shouldn't be too difficult; it's everywhere.... if you're being honest.

Gee George J. If anyone here had started posting Q nonsense I would object. But I don't see any such here.
Really - why ask me to object to something not in evidence here?
Isn't that a bit silly?