Family Life4 mins ago
I Could Not Love Thee Dear So Much, Lov’D I Not Honour More.
How could this chap have got his priorities so wrong>
http://
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sandyRoe. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
divebuddy - //Andy, How you've got the cheek to complain about other people being personal is laughable. Is your self awareness really that bad. //
If anyone has an issue with anything I post directly in response to one of their posts, they are more than welcome to take it up with me directly.
If you want to jump in and defend other posters who are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves, take a ticket and get in line, but a response to you under those circumstances is not guaranteed.
If anyone has an issue with anything I post directly in response to one of their posts, they are more than welcome to take it up with me directly.
If you want to jump in and defend other posters who are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves, take a ticket and get in line, but a response to you under those circumstances is not guaranteed.
-- answer removed --
divebuddy - //Andy, I'm not jumping in to defend other posters. I'm merely pointing out that you routinely bad mouth others but have a hissy fit if someone says something personal to you. The word "hypocrite" springs to mind. //
As I have mentioned earlier in the thread, I draw a distinction between robustly rebutting a viewpoint and issuing personal insults - I regularly carry out the first, I never carry out the second.
Therefore anyone is welcome to carry out the first with me, but not the second.
Simple consistency - hope that's cleared up any misunderstanding.
As I have mentioned earlier in the thread, I draw a distinction between robustly rebutting a viewpoint and issuing personal insults - I regularly carry out the first, I never carry out the second.
Therefore anyone is welcome to carry out the first with me, but not the second.
Simple consistency - hope that's cleared up any misunderstanding.
-- answer removed --
divebuddy - //Andy, //hope that's cleared up any misunderstanding.//
Only in your disillusioned mind. //
leaving aside your personal rudeness, if you have a query about anything I have said, feel free to let me know, and we can discuss it.
If you simply wish to be rude to me, then save us both the time.
Only in your disillusioned mind. //
leaving aside your personal rudeness, if you have a query about anything I have said, feel free to let me know, and we can discuss it.
If you simply wish to be rude to me, then save us both the time.
Having read every post on this topic, it amazes me how quickly the bickering starts and continues. With each protagonist trying to outdo each other in the use of big words" and rhetoric. Get back on topic!!
As was asked at the start of the post, how were two fit young men stopped by one man, from rescuing the poor girl?
As was asked at the start of the post, how were two fit young men stopped by one man, from rescuing the poor girl?
chrissa1 - //As was asked at the start of the post, how were two fit young men stopped by one man, from rescuing the poor girl? //
According to the subsequent report I read, the man in question was large and physically strong - I imagine that cultural differences may well have meant that the lifeguards deferred to his wishes, rather than to their job of saving a drowning swimmer.
According to the subsequent report I read, the man in question was large and physically strong - I imagine that cultural differences may well have meant that the lifeguards deferred to his wishes, rather than to their job of saving a drowning swimmer.
I was thinking the same thing (about the two lifeguards vs. one father).
Even if he was a big chap, he wouldn't have been able to overpower two lifeguards.
It's all extremely sad.
A complete waste of a life down to the strict adherence to religious code.
And if I may add (without being labelled an apologist), it calls to mind stories we occasionally hear about Jehovah's Witnesses refusing certain medical treatment for their kids. I've never fully understood that mindset - possibly because I don't have a religious bone in my body.
Even if he was a big chap, he wouldn't have been able to overpower two lifeguards.
It's all extremely sad.
A complete waste of a life down to the strict adherence to religious code.
And if I may add (without being labelled an apologist), it calls to mind stories we occasionally hear about Jehovah's Witnesses refusing certain medical treatment for their kids. I've never fully understood that mindset - possibly because I don't have a religious bone in my body.
sp1814 - //A complete waste of a life down to the strict adherence to religious code. //
Indeed, it is a tragedy in the real sense of the word.
As a non-religious person, I also find it incomprehensible that a parent can act against every instinct nature gave them, and allow harm to come to their child in order to adhere to a doctrine of faith.
Indeed, it is a tragedy in the real sense of the word.
As a non-religious person, I also find it incomprehensible that a parent can act against every instinct nature gave them, and allow harm to come to their child in order to adhere to a doctrine of faith.
Naomi - //andy-hughes, the subject isn't tiresome, but your constant double standards are. Clearly you are incapable of accepting valid criticism. //
I was referring to the ongoing desire of some AB'ers, yourself included, to become involved in a discussion which has no relevance to the thread.
Since you appear unwilling to exercise your right to drop the issue, I shall enjoy exercising my right to refuse to discuss it any further, since it is taking up space on sandy's thread, and is off-subject, which contravenes AB regulations.
I was referring to the ongoing desire of some AB'ers, yourself included, to become involved in a discussion which has no relevance to the thread.
Since you appear unwilling to exercise your right to drop the issue, I shall enjoy exercising my right to refuse to discuss it any further, since it is taking up space on sandy's thread, and is off-subject, which contravenes AB regulations.
Naomi - //andy-hughes, And here you go with 'regulations'. How convenient. You initially contravened the ‘regulations’ in this instance – others are simply pointing that out – no contravention there. Incidentally, you also take the prize for space filling.
I've said my bit - I'll let you get on with it. //
You do so love having the last word.
I've said my bit - I'll let you get on with it. //
You do so love having the last word.
Latest Posts
Body & Soul23 mins ago
I Think I've Found P Ps True...
Society & Culture26 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles27 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.