For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
There is no criticism of me that I would be offended by. It's just based on ignorance, and lack of understanding.reasonvemotion wrote:LOL.....Actually with hindsight, I think my rather harsh critique of C.W. would have warranted deletion, over the post that was.
Never mind, my message is clear, it does no good to argue about "religion", a rather futile exercise.
To whom?reasonvemotion wrote:Nevertheless I would like to apologise.
To make your apology worthwhile you would have to repeat that unrepeatable comment.reasonvemotion wrote:You, of course.
You silly man, you give credit to Rick for something he did not do.To make your apology worthwhile you would have to repeat that unrepeatable comment.
In any event you made the comment. I judge by what you do , not by what you take back.
I can't see the use of an apology- you said it, you can think yourself lucky that Rick deleted whatever it was.
Had I seen it the apology would not have wound back time.
reasonvemotion wrote:You silly man, you give credit to Rick for something he did not do.To make your apology worthwhile you would have to repeat that unrepeatable comment.
In any event you made the comment. I judge by what you do , not by what you take back.
I can't see the use of an apology- you said it, you can think yourself lucky that Rick deleted whatever it was.
Had I seen it the apology would not have wound back time.
You stupid girl - then why did you imply it!
What was deleted was entirely separate, nothing to do with this or the previous exchange.
Then what the hell are you babbling on about?
I go by my gut feeling and I felt an apology was in order. I have extended it to you. Take it or leave it. Please try not to be so intense and petulant.
I have no idea what you are talking about - what are you apologising for? Are you apologising for being who you are?
If you, as you say, judge by what I do, taking back is action is it not? Just not enough action for you, eh?
No - taking back is not relevant. You said what you said. And, as you will remember I don't really care what you say about me. If it is true - I'll accept it; if it is false it is due to your ignorance.
So, I'm still puzzled - you silly girl, because you are not making any sense.
It's all yours. I don't need it.Bernard wrote:Can I have it then Chaz? No use letting a good apology go to waste - not for me personally, I'll keep it in store for when I need to use it for some wrong I did another. Okay?
Thanks, what a bargain!
I think not.reasonvemotion wrote:
Never mind, my message is clear, it does no good to argue about "religion", a rather futile exercise.
I believe somewhere above, or in another thread we shared, I reported that Catholic Charities is the second leading provider of social services in the United States.You have presented ZERO evidence. And made no substantive claims for any benefits of religion.
I'd guess most or all Christian churches have similar charity wings, though I am less familiar with these activities, and can not provide specific data. I'm sure many other religions also are involved in such service to their communities.In 2008, Catholic Charities agencies served over 8 million individuals.Together with the local, diocesan-associated Catholic Charities, it is the second largest social service provider in the United States, surpassed only by the federal government.