Earth is a tough mother.

*can't help laughing* I do get the wrong end of the stick, Darth, sorry! Just I'd had the same debate going on today at one point!

Hugest irony of all? I agree! Sorry for getting muddled lol!

 

---

[b]tenorjedi[/b]: ?[i]If you'll note, I didn't put an emphasis on direct. Power is power, and to wield it behind the scenes without getting your hands dirty is preferable.[/i]?

Okay, I?ll say it one more time?

Please note that I put the word ?[b]direct[/b]? in bold letters for a reason, the NRA or any NGO does not have [b]direct[/b] political power. [hl=yellow]Thus, political power is never an [b]end[/b] (as you suggest) but a [b]means to an end[/b]; this is a huge difference and dismisses your illogical argument on this point as such[/hl].

This not a hard concept to grasp?. [face_plain]
[hr]
[b]tenorjedi[/b]: ?[i]My point was that the money they get is from donations etc[/i].

[b]MASTER_OBI-DAN[/b]: In contrast, big business/the energy industry, which tend to run anti-Environmental NGOs (as disinformation organizations) have a direct and vested interest: maintaining high profit margins from the status quo.

[b]tenorjedi[/b]: ?[i]Yes their income is vastly different, but again the point I'm trying to make is that they both have a vested monetary interest[/i].

Okay, I want to eliminate this issue of money being part of pro-Environmental NGOs? agendas once and for all. Most pro-Environmental NGOs? are [b]non-profit[/b] organizations. The two pro-Environmental NGOs that I have cited, [b]The Union of Concerned Scientists of the USA[/b] and [b]The David Suzuki Foundation[/b] exemplify this; the former is ?[link=http://www.ucsusa.org/index.html]nonprofit[/link]?, while the latter is actually a ?[link=http://www.davidsuzuki.org/About_us/]federally registered Canadian charity[/link].?

[b]tenorjedi[/b]: ?[i]Their funding would dry up if hypthetically people found out that the earth wasn't warming pollution wasn't destroying the enviroment.[/i]?

PPOR. [face_plain]
[hr]
[b]MASTER_OBI-DAN[/b]: I don?t doubt that there are some NGOs that overstate, but please note that I?ve only cited respected pro-Environmental NGOs like the [b]Union of Concerned Scientists of the USA[/b] and the [b]David Suzuki Foundation[/b]. If you cannot provide me with proof that these are not highly respectable NGOs, then please stop talking trash and stop making unfounded accusations.

[b]tenorjedi[/b]: ?[i]I'm not accusing, I'm questioning. I don't think there isn't a group or individual who isn't above a questioning of their goals, and motives. I'm saying, "can't they conciveably have their own agenda? Here's why it's possible; money, power etc".[/i]?

Alright, I?ve dispelled both power and money as being two motivating factors for pro-Environmentalist NGOs. Also, I don?t mind you questioning, but if you have proof whatsoever to back up your questioning, cease and desist after you have done so once [b]and stop slandering[/b] these highly-respected and reputable organizations with your unsubstantiated accusations. [face_plain]
[hr]
[b]MASTER_OBI-DAN[/b]: You have not directly refuted even one of the sources that I have provided (two were governmental ? it is fair to say they are largely unbiased, two were respected pro-Environmental NGOs ? that you have refused to prove their disrepute) or refute any of the facts that I or that others on this thread have kindly provided. Not one. And you also have not provided any respected sources whatsoever ? namely, any ?links to the work of a large body of scientists that supports your position.?

[b]tenorjedi[/b]: ?[i]I stopped debating websites with websites long ago.[/i]?

Well, without evidence, both your arguments and points will only take you so far - which isn't far at all.

[b]tenorjedi[/b]: ?[i]All you end up with is a huge reply nobody reads and it kills all reasonable debate.[/i]?

All the posts are there for any [b]JCer[/b] or Internet surfer to read if they want; nothing is stopping them. If they choose not to read them, then that?s neither yours nor my fault. [face_wink]

[hl=yellow]In direct contrast to you, I believe authoritative sources, proof, evidence, sources, links, etc. can only enhance debates (especially here in [b]The Senate Floor[/b

 

Obi-Dan, it was not a slur, it was not a negative comment about the Catholic religion. I'm sorry that you're offended and that you see something offensive that is not there. I'm sorry that you're so easily offended, but I'm not sorry that I said it. Normally I'd retract it just to keep the peace, but I'm not because I didn't say anything wrong here. How you get a slur out of it is beyond me. Perhaps the problem is you and your own insecurities, but that is something for you to think about.

As for the PM, I said it, so I cannot be ashamed of it. Post away if you feel it will vindicate you in revealing me to be the religion bashing monger that I am.

It seems to me that you cannot debate without getting emotionally attached. This is pointless beyond the norm and is way too much drama for me. It's a debate not a soap opera, so forgive me if I refuse to waste any more of my time.

 

tenorjedi: ?As for the PM, I said it, so I cannot be ashamed of it. Post away if you feel it will vindicate you in revealing me to be the religion bashing monger that I am.?

Thank you for your permission. Please note that my desire to post this has nothing to do with revealing you ?to be the religion bashing monger? as you state, because I do not believe that to be the case.

*********************************************
From: tenorjedi
Date Sent: 9/19 10:57am
Date Read: 9/19 11:32pm
Subject: Religion
Body: Dan-

"I want you to know that although I disagree with you on many things, I do not hold contempt for the Catholic religion. In fact I will defend it from the many jerks out there who would like to deface it based soley on the actions of .001% of catholics who haven't been the best representatives.

The comment I made was based soley off of church doctrine which I disagree with, which fell in line with the way environmentalits and vegetarians tell me I'm supposed to live my life. I see a parralel there. Nothing wrong with being a Catholic or an environmentalist if that's what you believe and the way you want to live your life.

Just so you know where I'm coming from. It wasn't a slur or pot shot, just a comparison of 2 groups who have a way they would like to see people live, and neither are for me right now."
********************************************

The only reason I wanted to post it was to show there was no apology whatsoever either here in the PM (or in the previous post); thus, why do you feel the need to lie (by saying you?ve apologized "like 5 times now" when you hadn't even apologized once before that statement was made)?

---

[b]tenorjedi[/b]: ?[i]Obi-Dan, it was not a slur, it was not a negative comment about the Catholic religion.[/i]?

As a [b]Roman Catholic[/b], I found you comment to be a religious slur and offensive. Why? Because unlike how you state, your comment (and its woeful justifications) are illustrative of a distinctly negative value-judgment on some of my religion?s core theology IMHO: namely, we are all [b]tainted by Original Sin[/b] and [b]salvation[/b] can only be obtained by following the teachings and [b]perfect[/b] example established by [b]Christ[/b].

Now, if you disagree with the ?[i]doctrine[/i]? of my religion, that?s not a problem and you are totally free to hold your own beliefs. But please don?t spew out such negative value-judgements about the core theology/?[i]doctrine[/i]? of someone?s religion openly on a public/family/religiously tolerant forum. [face_plain]
[hr]
[b]tenorjedi[/b]: ?[i]Normally I'd retract it just to keep the peace, but I'm not because I didn't say anything wrong here?[b][hl=yellow]Perhaps the problem is you and your own insecurities, but that is something for you to think about.[/b][/hl][/i]?

Alright, this statement directly violates the first paragraph of the [b]T-o-S[/b]:

[i][b]User agrees not to post material that is knowingly false and/or defamatory, misleading, inaccurate, abusive[/b], vulgar, hateful, [b]harassing[/b], obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, that otherwise violates any law, or that encourages conduct constituting a criminal offense.[/i]

Why do you feel the need to violate the [b]T-o-S[/b] to make defamatory and abusive attacks against my personal character, instead of debating the issues being discussed in this thread? Why do you feel the need to flame me? [face_confused]

Now, usually I let this sort of thing slide, but this is the second defamatory and abusive attack that you?ve made against my personal character in two days. The one from yesterday is this:

[b]tenorjedi[/b]: ?[i]The problem is when someone disagrees with you, you take this attitude of superiority. I'm not just talking about myself either. I see you do it to anyone who has a dissenting opinion to you. You might just want to reevaluate how you respectful you are to those that don't believe what you believe.[/i

 

If you feel my posts are against the TOS take them up with a mod, otherwise drop this whole thing. It's been blown way out of proportion, and is way too full of internet drama for me.


Molehill, meet Mr. Mountain.