HOLLYWOOD STOCK EXCHANGE
THE ENTERTAINMENT MARKET
THE ENTERTAINMENT MARKET
Noted. There is a limit to what kind of discussion is acceptable. This is NOT. We got on A4J's back pretty hard
for expounding ultra religious theological pontifications upon us. This is the opposite, shall we say the AntiChrist side of that discussion. I think BOTH extremes are outside the scope of acceptability on these forums. This is no place to convert people to Christianity, nor the place to have people convert from it. (Not that it is possible). So other than being an exercise of futility, it is "harmful, threatening, embarrassing, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, deceptive, fraudulent, contains explicit or graphic descriptions or accounts of sexual acts (including but not limited to sexual language of a violent or threatening nature directed at another individual or group of individuals), invasive of another's privacy, or hateful;"
NOT THE PLACE! If we allow this, than open up the ****ing hatches, because there's a load of **** that can pile on to these discussions.
HARD WIRED MY ASS. Assumption, nor proven. Idiot.
Time to drop the Atom Bomb in here: All Christians are basically atheists Mar 26, 21:34
Over the line. Harassment. Time to scrub. Against code of conduct. {nm} Mar 26, 22:33
Harassment to who? BSmurf has valid points. Why is it ok to make religious arguments, but not atheist ones? Mar 27, 06:13
Noted. There is a limit to what kind of discussion is acceptable. This is NOT. We got on A4J's back pretty hard Mar 27, 10:55
Have I scrubbed any of A4J's posts? {nm} Mar 27, 11:05
Maybe not...but at least you admonished the behavior. silence means consent dear boy, and you silence in spades. {nm} Mar 27, 11:27
I think if you're taking BSmurf's post seriously, you've failed the test. {nm} Mar 27, 12:09
You removed A4J from managing the AWARD Fund without notice. {nm} Mar 27, 15:40
This unwarranted action caused Tanker to quit HSX (18OCT2012). {nm} Mar 27, 15:41
Psst Mar 27, 15:52
I'm relieved someone equating homosexuality with rape and pedophila is no longer a fund manager. {nm} Mar 27, 15:57
Kinsey did it, so why aren't you railing on him too? Mar 27, 17:05
If Kinsey played this game, you'd have a point - but not until then {nm} Mar 28, 00:20
Who are you calling an idiot? The scientific evidence for homosexuality is growing and will be proven in time. Mar 27, 11:01
While we're at it,could you please post next week's winning lottery numbers? {nm} Mar 27, 11:26
Shrug. Progress will eventually show who's been standing on the right side of history. {nm} Mar 27, 11:33
I'm still reading about it. Don't assume that just because I don't answer immediately it means I can't respond. Mar 27, 14:27
Scientific evidence for homosexuality? What does that mean? Scientific evidence that it exists? Mar 27, 12:39
You believe that there are fellow human beings who are born undesirable? Wow. {nm} Mar 27, 12:52
that's a silly, inflammatory statement. Cystic fibrosis is genetically based. Does anyone desire it? Mar 28, 09:19
I did NOT say cystic fibrosis was equivalent to hemosexuality. I said having a genetic predisposition to something does not Mar 28, 12:42
No one. I merely said it was not conducive to replicating itself. {nm} Mar 29, 12:53
No, you originally said beinng genetically predisposed to be homosexual is not desirable. Nothing about replicating. {nm} Mar 29, 16:34
Stephen F Roberts quote Mar 27, 06:04
+1 {nm} Mar 27, 06:13
You should post this quote as the heading. It perfectly sums my opinion. I was going to post this till I read your post. {nm} Mar 28, 00:15
You're right, but it was too long. {nm} Mar 28, 07:35
Here's a good example of BSmurf's point. Go to the 7:20 mark. Mar 27, 06:34
Interesting only because this is the crime Rome convicted early Xians of when they wouldn't acknowledge other gods. {nm} Mar 27, 09:16
As an exercise in logic, utter rot. Claiming all religions get equal %, even if they have 2 adherents as opposed to 2 billion, Mar 27, 09:21
Your argument is full of conclusions (not facts, but opinions) with no fact to support them. A = C? (where is the +B). Mar 27, 10:58
My final thoughts on all this: you have the freedom to believe what you want to believe and love who you want to love. Mar 27, 11:35
In some parts of the world only. Regrettably. {nm} Mar 27, 12:42
Bashing Christianity is perfectly within the TOS of HSX. Others religions, not so much. Mar 27, 14:08
Time to respond with an atom bomb: All atheists are simply agnostic. Mar 27, 14:10
No, no, you're ALL wrong (agnostics excepted) Mar 27, 16:38
How is faith illogical when you exercise it every day? Mar 27, 16:54
You're conflating faith with knowledge based on interactions (learning) with real people and real objects. Mar 27, 17:22
I think there's a difference between faith and trust. {nm} Mar 27, 17:26
Oh dear....I hate to burst your bubble.... Mar 27, 17:27
Blind faith is illogical. Faith based on evidence is not. Perhaps I have evidence you do not? Or have interpreted the Mar 28, 09:25
You can call it evidence all you want -- I call it willingness to wear rose-colored glasses. Mar 28, 11:07
( ^ reply to forlorne) {nm} Mar 28, 11:08
You call WHAT wearing rose-colored glasses? how can you deny the validity of evidence you are not even aware of? Mar 28, 12:45
I know how the believers' evidence game is played. Sorry. {nm} Mar 28, 13:19
Wanna wager on that? {nm} Mar 29, 12:53
