the thing is people have to eat it or shoot it up or something. for it to work. and few enjoy the taste or the prick.
Dr. weirwille said we could go with God alone but no need to...blah blah
so even by his estimation we need to get along with the "others".
difficult to do when you think they are all stupid or less than you.
the conviction you speak of is noble, but as the rodents ( i love the mouse) states the little people could use some help with the fire and the heat has been on for all to feel.
jesus christ didnt come to save those who have the truth.
He is the truth. pretty a much it is the rest of us God had a plan for.
look i love folks to and i have even admired a person occasionly, for an aspect of what they have accomplished in life.
then something happens and I realize they are human and something about them just bugs me. not right.
I can continue to admire or respect the area i learned from, but realize more is out there to learn from.
it is the approach man.
soldier you may be, but what is your weapon of choice ?
words? your or those of vpw? both men and both open to some kind of issue with someone, someday. such is life.
you got stuck man. break free.
do what you must live in the freedom of what you know as truth, stop draggin a dead man around with you.
yes THEY are doing that by your estimation. it doesnt hurt them , your the one who sounds rather bully and it wont work to change any defense or attack it will only demand everyone draw their own arms.
fight flesh and blood till the cows come home.
and you will fight alone. Dr. weirwille told you you do not have to because of the body of Christ.
you end up with a angry bitter nearly insane mind who effects zero change and helps no one .
this idea of they hated Jesus so they hated weirwille so they must hate me............ is kind of screwed up man.
many loved Jesus christ , and he Im certain He loved YOU.
take out the anger at people stop fighting the flesh and blood that God so loved He gave us HiS SON.
Psychology. A person of mild mental retardation having a mental age of from 7 to 12 years and generally having communication and social skills enabling some degree of academic or vocational education. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.
Dolts!
dolt:
A stupid person; a dunce.
dunce:
A stupid person; a dolt.
stupid:
1. Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.
2. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.
3. Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake.
Not specifically, Pond. WTH wants to talk to intelligent people here, not morons. I thought it might be worthwhile to see exactly what a moron is, or at least how they're defined in the dictionary.
It's an interesting use of the word. F'instance, here's where I took it - by definition there could be actual morons posting here that could be defined as such, by the older medical definition, which I had a vague recollection of, don't ask me where from.
But it's probably not being used that way here. We could in fact have morons by that definition posting here though, but if that was the case it would be pretty cruel to eliminate them from the discussion for that reason alone. It would probably be more reasonable to identify them as such and find a place for them to discuss these matters at their intelligence level, that of children.
Contrasting "intelligent" with that definition of "moron" in such a harsh way would be pretty rough in other words, IMO, since the person does have intelligence - that of a 7 to 12 year old. They should be communicated with accordingly if that's the case rather than pushed aside as if they're doing something wrong. They're not, they're functioning at their intelligence level. I wouldn't make fun of or abuse a person like that, and I'm sure most of us here wouldn't.
So what is a "moron" then, in this context, as I'm sure WTH wouldn't be identifying people here as being mentally retarded for their age and thus criticizing their judgment and actions as if they could be responsible to function at a higher level. I'll assume it's the other definition - someone stupid, a dunce, someone stupiified. Folded into that are a lot of other things, as we see by what the other words mean.
Basically it's a put down, an insult. So why would an insult be thrown out at someone in the context of this discussion? That's a good question.
Disagreement doesn't qualify it. But disagreement definitely tends to pull this kind of behavior out of people, any of us, all of us, at times.
I was in the car today, and got held in the middle of an intersection today, while a car in front of us turning left was stopped, waiting to finish the turn.
A car coming the other way into the intersection and trying to get through got stuck and tried to go around them, and then sort of wiggled their way around the front of my car, which was fine. It didn't bother me, they were entitled to do that if they wanted to get through, there was nothing the car turning, or I, could do as some people were crossing at the light when they weren't supposed to, the kind of thing that happens a lot.
So the guy in the car is wiggling his way through, in a hurry and pizzed off at everybody and honking - behind his closed window - obviously yelling at first the car turning, then me when he gets next to passing by me, and waving his hand in the one finger salute. He wizzed on past us in a dither.
There were 3 guys in my car, and one - him - in his. So if he'd stopped and registered that complaint directly to me, I'd have been inspired to turn a little and block his way, get out of my car and bust open his window, drag him out and shove him up against my car while the other two guys held him and I ....
Oh wait. It was nothing. Over in a minute, and Mr. CrankyPants went on his way and that was that. It was funny more than anything else, and not worth even wasting my time on, and knowing this one little bald guy behind his closed locked door felt tough enough to honk and raise hel l like that meant nothing really. I guess he was just having a bad day. We on the other hand, went on to have a great day.
I think you’ve got it all wrong, Socks. The literal according to interpretation is “more on.” Or “off.” I’m fine with it either way as long as there is a switch to turn it on or off. I like having a choice.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
6
6
9
16
Popular Days
Jul 10
23
Jul 11
23
Jul 12
16
Jul 9
8
Top Posters In This Topic
excathedra 6 posts
WordWolf 6 posts
Ham 9 posts
Larry N Moore 16 posts
Popular Days
Jul 10 2007
23 posts
Jul 11 2007
23 posts
Jul 12 2007
16 posts
Jul 9 2007
8 posts
pond
what the hey
man it is the approach.
if you have a remedy that is a good thing.
the thing is people have to eat it or shoot it up or something. for it to work. and few enjoy the taste or the prick.
Dr. weirwille said we could go with God alone but no need to...blah blah
so even by his estimation we need to get along with the "others".
difficult to do when you think they are all stupid or less than you.
the conviction you speak of is noble, but as the rodents ( i love the mouse) states the little people could use some help with the fire and the heat has been on for all to feel.
jesus christ didnt come to save those who have the truth.
He is the truth. pretty a much it is the rest of us God had a plan for.
look i love folks to and i have even admired a person occasionly, for an aspect of what they have accomplished in life.
then something happens and I realize they are human and something about them just bugs me. not right.
I can continue to admire or respect the area i learned from, but realize more is out there to learn from.
it is the approach man.
soldier you may be, but what is your weapon of choice ?
words? your or those of vpw? both men and both open to some kind of issue with someone, someday. such is life.
you got stuck man. break free.
do what you must live in the freedom of what you know as truth, stop draggin a dead man around with you.
yes THEY are doing that by your estimation. it doesnt hurt them , your the one who sounds rather bully and it wont work to change any defense or attack it will only demand everyone draw their own arms.
fight flesh and blood till the cows come home.
and you will fight alone. Dr. weirwille told you you do not have to because of the body of Christ.
you end up with a angry bitter nearly insane mind who effects zero change and helps no one .
this idea of they hated Jesus so they hated weirwille so they must hate me............ is kind of screwed up man.
many loved Jesus christ , and he Im certain He loved YOU.
take out the anger at people stop fighting the flesh and blood that God so loved He gave us HiS SON.
buy a hose .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Moron:
Dolts!
dolt:
A stupid person; a dunce.
dunce:
A stupid person; a dolt.
stupid:
1. Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.
2. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.
3. Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake.
4. Dazed, stunned, or stupefied.
5. Pointless; worthless: a stupid job.
Stupid, stupified dunces, dolts and morons!
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
pond
socks
me?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
no, me ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Dang It!
I want in on this, too.
I could be a maroon if I put my mind to it!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
you look a little (deep) purple to me
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Not specifically, Pond. WTH wants to talk to intelligent people here, not morons. I thought it might be worthwhile to see exactly what a moron is, or at least how they're defined in the dictionary.
It's an interesting use of the word. F'instance, here's where I took it - by definition there could be actual morons posting here that could be defined as such, by the older medical definition, which I had a vague recollection of, don't ask me where from.
But it's probably not being used that way here. We could in fact have morons by that definition posting here though, but if that was the case it would be pretty cruel to eliminate them from the discussion for that reason alone. It would probably be more reasonable to identify them as such and find a place for them to discuss these matters at their intelligence level, that of children.
Contrasting "intelligent" with that definition of "moron" in such a harsh way would be pretty rough in other words, IMO, since the person does have intelligence - that of a 7 to 12 year old. They should be communicated with accordingly if that's the case rather than pushed aside as if they're doing something wrong. They're not, they're functioning at their intelligence level. I wouldn't make fun of or abuse a person like that, and I'm sure most of us here wouldn't.
So what is a "moron" then, in this context, as I'm sure WTH wouldn't be identifying people here as being mentally retarded for their age and thus criticizing their judgment and actions as if they could be responsible to function at a higher level. I'll assume it's the other definition - someone stupid, a dunce, someone stupiified. Folded into that are a lot of other things, as we see by what the other words mean.
Basically it's a put down, an insult. So why would an insult be thrown out at someone in the context of this discussion? That's a good question.
Disagreement doesn't qualify it. But disagreement definitely tends to pull this kind of behavior out of people, any of us, all of us, at times.
I was in the car today, and got held in the middle of an intersection today, while a car in front of us turning left was stopped, waiting to finish the turn.
A car coming the other way into the intersection and trying to get through got stuck and tried to go around them, and then sort of wiggled their way around the front of my car, which was fine. It didn't bother me, they were entitled to do that if they wanted to get through, there was nothing the car turning, or I, could do as some people were crossing at the light when they weren't supposed to, the kind of thing that happens a lot.
So the guy in the car is wiggling his way through, in a hurry and pizzed off at everybody and honking - behind his closed window - obviously yelling at first the car turning, then me when he gets next to passing by me, and waving his hand in the one finger salute. He wizzed on past us in a dither.
There were 3 guys in my car, and one - him - in his. So if he'd stopped and registered that complaint directly to me, I'd have been inspired to turn a little and block his way, get out of my car and bust open his window, drag him out and shove him up against my car while the other two guys held him and I ....
Oh wait. It was nothing. Over in a minute, and Mr. CrankyPants went on his way and that was that. It was funny more than anything else, and not worth even wasting my time on, and knowing this one little bald guy behind his closed locked door felt tough enough to honk and raise hel l like that meant nothing really. I guess he was just having a bad day. We on the other hand, went on to have a great day.
Selah.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
I think you’ve got it all wrong, Socks. The literal according to interpretation is “more on.” Or “off.” I’m fine with it either way as long as there is a switch to turn it on or off. I like having a choice.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Interesting insight another spot! Yes, an arugument could be made for that, a strong one.
"He's-a more on", probably from an early Italian usaage? not sure.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.