Blasphemy and Duck Rape

[Holmes_and_Watson]

18 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Ignore lists are a funny one and don't really work the way they should, but they are necesary. This is because of multiple reasons:

1. For me, they are for the dregs of society. The paedophiles, the rapists and the racists. I use it in extreme situations. I have one person on my ignore list, and I believe him to be all 3 of the above.

2. Ignore lists are only "ignored" on the initial post - any post that is replied to us visible, so you still get see their diatribe if anybody wishes to reply to their dialogue.

Well, this episode of "twat" or "imbecile" has taken a dark turn.

(Note: If Farmer responds to this, it means I'm in the clear.)

[badgerx16]

40 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

Well, this episode of "twat" or "imbecile" has taken a dark turn.

(Note: If Farmer responds to this, it means I'm in the clear.)

I'll quote you, just in case.

[Farmer Saint]

52 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

Well, this episode of "twat" or "imbecile" has taken a dark turn.

(Note: If Farmer responds to this, it means I'm in the clear.)

Definitely haven't seen this post 😜

[Farmer Saint]

17 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

I'll quote you, just in case.

Twat 😜

Edited 18 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Weston Super Saint]

9 hours ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

Well, this episode of "twat" or "imbecile" has taken a dark turn.

(Note: If Farmer responds to this, it means I'm in the clear.)

You are.

He pretends to have me on ignore, until he forgets and quotes things I've posted that haven't been quoted.

He's also admitted that he takes me off ignore to read my posts, which is bizarre, then puts me back on ignore.

He's not provided any evidence that I'm a paedophile, rapist or racist though.  Sometimes I think he just fantises about me too much!

Cue Farmer Giles with some pithy comeback and an 'x out of y' tag that wasn't funny the first 30 odd times he did it.

Edited yesterday at 06:20 by Weston Super Saint

[Farmer Saint]

46 of 49 - literally can't stop following me around. I wonder what your wife thinks of the fact that I take up so much of your life - I feel sorry for her.

[sadoldgit]

12 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

Ignore lists are a funny one and don't really work the way they should, but they are necesary. This is because of multiple reasons:

1. For me, they are for the dregs of society. The paedophiles, the rapists and the racists. I use it in extreme situations. I have one person on my ignore list, and I believe him to be all 3 of the above.

2. Ignore lists are only "ignored" on the initial post - any post that is replied to us visible, so you still get see their diatribe if anybody wishes to reply to their dialogue.

Weston has had the ignore list explained to him a hundred times but still fails to understand how it works. I will try again. When you have someone on ignore their post appears only as a greyed out box telling you that they have posted and the poster is on your ignore list. You can then happily carry on and ignore it or you can hit the options button which gives you…some options! One of them is to read the post if you so choose. So you do not have to take the person off of your ignore list, read the post and then put them back as Weston seems to believe, bless him. As you also make clear, if someone else quotes a post from someone on your ignore list, it appears as the quote in their post as it does for any post.

So then, it is entirely possible to have someone on your ignore list yet still see their posts, either intentionally if you so chose for specific posts, or unintentionally when an ignored poster is quoted. It really isn’t rocket science yet there are some who don’t seem to understand how it works.

For further information, the options given are:-

Show this post

Stop ignoring posts by XXXX

Change ignore preferences

Edited yesterday at 08:59 by sadoldgit
Added text

[Weston Super Saint]

2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

Weston has had the ignore list explained to him a hundred times but still fails to understand how it works. I will try again. When you have someone on ignore their post appears only as a greyed out box telling you that they have posted and the poster is on your ignore list.

This is something we all know, we aren't all as stupid as you...

This post was directly following mine, so there was zero chance anyone could quote it so zero chance Farmer Piles would know I'd referenced him in my post :

2 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

46 of 49 - literally can't stop following me around. I wonder what your wife thinks of the fact that I take up so much of your life - I feel sorry for her.

So, either one of two things happened...

1. Farmer Piles took me off ignore to read my post, then put me back on ignore again, a lot of effort for someone you think is a rapist, paedophile and racist.

2. Farmer Giles doesn't have me on ignore.

Either option is tragically sad for a grown man.  If you have someone on ignore, great, well done you.  There is literally nothing to be gained by announcing on a mong board that you've got someone on ignore, then keep responding to them, then tell everyone how you've got them on ignore.

No wonder you are so quick to defend the clueless farmer, these are the exact same actions you've carried out in the past.

 

[egg]

5 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

This is something we all know, we aren't all as stupid as you...

This post was directly following mine, so there was zero chance anyone could quote it so zero chance Farmer Piles would know I'd referenced him in my post :

So, either one of two things happened...

1. Farmer Piles took me off ignore to read my post, then put me back on ignore again, a lot of effort for someone you think is a rapist, paedophile and racist.

2. Farmer Giles doesn't have me on ignore.

Either option is tragically sad for a grown man.  If you have someone on ignore, great, well done you.  There is literally nothing to be gained by announcing on a mong board that you've got someone on ignore, then keep responding to them, then tell everyone how you've got them on ignore.

No wonder you are so quick to defend the clueless farmer, these are the exact same actions you've carried out in the past.

 

It doesn't work like that. You can just look at a post. I've had one poster on ignore from time to time cos I find him/her irritating. Every now and again I'll look at a post, and even engage. The ignore function just means that by default I don't directly see their posts. 

I'm not with you on this, and it's a weak stick to beat someone with imo. 

Where I am with you is that FS is a disgrace calling anyone on here what he has. That's unacceptable and poor form. 

[Weston Super Saint]

6 minutes ago, egg said:

It doesn't work like that. You can just look at a post. I've had one poster on ignore from time to time cos I find him/her irritating. Every now and again I'll look at a post, and even engage. The ignore function just means that by default I don't directly see their posts. 

I'm not with you on this, and it's a weak stick to beat someone with imo. 

Where I am with you is that FS is a disgrace calling anyone on here what he has. That's unacceptable and poor form. 

Which is what option 1 does.  Temporarily take them off ignore by choosing to read the post.  Seems to defeat the purpose of ignoring someone (and trumpeting that you are doing so), if you then 'choose' to read their posts.

Isn't it easier to have some self control and not read their posts / engage with a poster if you believe they are a racist, paedophile and rapist?

[egg]

2 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Which is what option 1 does.  Temporarily take them off ignore by choosing to read the post.  Seems to defeat the purpose of ignoring someone (and trumpeting that you are doing so), if you then 'choose' to read their posts.

Isn't it easier to have some self control and not read their posts / engage with a poster if you believe they are a racist, paedophile and rapist?

We'll agree to differ. Electing to see one post from one person is not taking them off ignore. 

I'm not addressing the second point. I've made my position clear on making those kind of allegations, but can understand wanting to look at a posters posts from time, and on certain subjects, rather than seeing all of them. 

[Farmer Saint]

25 minutes ago, egg said:

It doesn't work like that. You can just look at a post. I've had one poster on ignore from time to time cos I find him/her irritating. Every now and again I'll look at a post, and even engage. The ignore function just means that by default I don't directly see their posts. 

I'm not with you on this, and it's a weak stick to beat someone with imo. 

Where I am with you is that FS is a disgrace calling anyone on here what he has. That's unacceptable and poor form. 

What he doesn't get is that I never actually look at his posts, which is why I never engage with him because I don't know what he's posted. I guess that he has posted in response to or about me as he is obsessed with me, and follows me around.

He probably isn't a paedophile, although I do wonder why he has a picture of a rabbit as his avatar? Seems a bit sinister to me. He's probably not a rapist.

He is however, an islamophobe even and a racist, and the joy that killing innocent Gazan children has brought him is utterly sickening, and saying they deserved to die because their parents are Gazan is fucking atrocious. It's all there in the Israel thread if you want to read it. I did report it to Tell Mama at the time but assume they couldn't do anything about it.

Odd decision to out himself as who I was talking about as well - as if anyone gives a flying fuck who I have on ignore.

Edited 21 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[badgerx16]

15 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

Twat.

Bit harsh.

[Farmer Saint]

2 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

Bit harsh.

I've edited it to have a smiley face - it wasn't meant maliciously.

[Weston Super Saint]

6 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

.

He is however, an islamophobe even and a racist, and the joy that killing innocent Gazan children has brought him is utterly sickening, and saying they deserved to die because their parents are Gazan is fucking atrocious. 

 

I posted the text from Hamas' charter.

If you believe I wrote that, then you're thicker than even I've given you credit for.

I've never said Gazan children deserved to die. I suspect Farmer Giles has me confused.

More than happy for him to prove me wrong though and quote where I've said that...

[Matthew Le God]

25 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

I've never said Gazan children deserved to die. 

Did first born babies of Egyptians deserve to die? Or the babies in the global flood genocide?

[Weston Super Saint]

4 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Did first born babies of Egyptians deserve to die? Or the babies in the global flood genocide?

Have you got any evidence that either of those things happened?

[Matthew Le God]

15 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Have you got any evidence that either of those things happened?

No, and I didn't say they did. Question still works if it happened or not.

[badgerx16]

26 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Did first born babies of Egyptians deserve to die? Or the babies in the global flood genocide?

What would you do if somebody answered "yes" ?

[Matthew Le God]

1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

What would you do if somebody answered "yes" ?

I'd ask why they think newborn babies deserve to die and do they think it is the action of something good or evil.

[egg]

31 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

No, and I didn't say they did. Question still works if it happened or not.

If the question was evidence based it would be understandable, but it's a very peculiar hypothetical question. Why ask something like that? 

[Turkish]

On 26/04/2025 at 20:40, Matthew Le God said:

Sure, I know I my posting style on certain subjects can come across as a twat to some on this forum.

The amateur autism diagnosis thrown around is nonsense. I work in a SEN school, I know more about autism than any amateur expert on here.

I do not talk to people like this off the forum. For their own sake and that of others I hope those stalking me around the forum also don't act as they do on this forum!

A key difference is that along with the twatty arguments I get into, I do positively contribute to the forum with news, links, jokes etc. Same can't be said for some of those on this thread!

Hmmm. Can’t think of any specific times that’s happened. 

[Matthew Le God]

1 minute ago, Turkish said:

Hmmm. Can’t think of any specific times that’s happened. 

We can add not being very observant to working out %, counting and all the other things.

[Turkish]

Just now, Matthew Le God said:

We can add not being very observant to working out %, counting and all the other things.

Don’t seem to have too much problem observing all your fails though 👍

[Matthew Le God]

9 minutes ago, egg said:

If the question was evidence based it would be understandable, but it's a very peculiar hypothetical question. Why ask something like that? 

It is not hypothetical. Regardless of if it is fiction or non fiction did the babies deserve to die in the story?

Did Hans Gruber deserve to die in Die Hard? Fictional character but we can still say if we think it was right to let him die.

[Matthew Le God]

3 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Don’t seem to have too much problem observing all your fails though 👍

Is there any glass left in your house? 

[Turkish]

7 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Is there any glass left in your house? 

This forum is huge for you on your personal development journey Matthew 

[Matthew Le God]

10 minutes ago, Turkish said:

This forum is huge for you on your personal development journey Matthew 

Where as you have more glass embedded in your feet than John McClane!

Edited 13 hours ago by Matthew Le God

[Turkish]

17 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Where as you have more glass embedded in your feet than John McClane!

Is this an example of a link, a joke, news or another type of positive contribution to the forum?

[egg]

31 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

It is not hypothetical. Regardless of if it is fiction or non fiction did the babies deserve to die in the story?

Did Hans Gruber deserve to die in Die Hard? Fictional character but we can still say if we think it was right to let him die.

A ridiculous response which highlights your daft shtick.

You insist on evidence for everything asked or said by anyone else, only to ask bible based  questions but say the bible is fictional. Either you want to start discussion from a factual basis or you don't. 

[Matthew Le God]

7 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Is this an example of a link, a joke, news or another type of positive contribution to the forum?

Yes, it is an example of a joke.

So is this from yesterday...

Do you find that mildly amusing at all?

As for posting news about Saints others benefit from seeing and positively contributed to the forum. I do it all the time. You just focus on my other posts.

 

[Matthew Le God]

10 minutes ago, egg said:

A ridiculous response which highlights your daft shtick.

You insist on evidence for everything asked or said by anyone else, only to ask bible based  questions but say the bible is fictional. Either you want to start discussion from a factual basis or you don't. 

Some Christians claim they are factual and those things happened word for word.

Even if they are fiction. Why can't we discuss fictional characters and events? 

Edited 12 hours ago by Matthew Le God

[egg]

59 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

We can add not being very observant to working out %, counting and all the other things.

The % was next to fuck all mate. Whether it was 0.05 or whatever, or 0.95 or whatever, I think it's been established that the take up rate was a poor <1%. Pretty desperate stuff when 0.90% or whatever makes a difference to your ego. 

[Turkish]

3 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Yes, it is an example of a joke.

So is this from yesterday...

Do you find that mildly amusing at all?

As for posting news about Saints others benefit from seeing and positively contributed to the forum. I do it all the time. You just focus on my other posts.

 

Oh it was a joke got it, the best ones are always the ones when you have to explain them or tell people that it was even a joke 👍

[egg]

2 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Some Christians claim there are factual and those things happened word for word.

Even if they are fiction. Why can't we discuss fictional characters and events? 

But Matthew, you're not a Christian, and this is a God,  not bible thread. Please understand that.

Regardless, you clearly wanted someone to agree that your bible based references were awful. You'd then have babbled on about an all loving God. Your angle was bloody transparent though and you were cut off at the pass. A poor attempt at trolling. 

On to your latest reply.

A. You either insist on an evidence based discussion or you don't. Which is it to be? 

B. You've said that your questions weren't hypothetical, but now ask why you can't ask hypothetical questions. Were they hypothetical or not?

C. If they weren't, is it the case that the bible is credible evidence if you think it helps you get a "gotcha", but bollocks otherwise? Feels that way. 

Anyways, your schtick is tedious and really transparent. You can only do what you do well if you're bright. Sadly you don't do it well. 

[Matthew Le God]

10 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Oh it was a joke got it, the best ones are always the ones when you have to explain them or tell people that it was even a joke 👍

Ignored my question.

[Turkish]

5 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Ignored my question.

I’m sure literally at least less than 1% of people on here will find it funny 

[Matthew Le God]

2 minutes ago, Turkish said:

I’m sure literally at least less than 1% of people on here will find it funny 

Try answering the actual question.

[Matthew Le God]

28 minutes ago, egg said:

But Matthew, you're not a Christian, and this is a God,  not bible thread. Please understand that.

Regardless, you clearly wanted someone to agree that your bible based references were awful. You'd then have babbled on about an all loving God. Your angle was bloody transparent though and you were cut off at the pass. A poor attempt at trolling. 

On to your latest reply.

A. You either insist on an evidence based discussion or you don't. Which is it to be? 

B. You've said that your questions weren't hypothetical, but now ask why you can't ask hypothetical questions. Were they hypothetical or not?

C. If they weren't, is it the case that the bible is credible evidence if you think it helps you get a "gotcha", but bollocks otherwise? Feels that way. 

Anyways, your schtick is tedious and really transparent. You can only do what you do well if you're bright. Sadly you don't do it well. 

A) Some people claim that those scriptures are evidence for their belief. So by questioning it I'm questioning the evidence. That makes it a discussion trying to identify the validity of the evidence claims.

B) Strawman fallacy. I did not ask why I can't ask hypothetical questions. A question about if the actions in a story were justified or not is not hypothetical regardless of it being fiction or non fiction. The question was about the word for word actions in a story, there is no hypothetical element to the question.

C) If the death of those babies, fictional or not were not justifiable then it is a flaw on any claim of a loving, fair and just God as described in scripture.

Edited 12 hours ago by Matthew Le God

[Turkish]

21 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Try answering the actual question.

Isn’t it annoying when people dodge the question and talk bollocks in their replies to you…….

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, Matthew Le God said:

Some Christians claim they are factual and those things happened word for word.

Even if they are fiction. Why can't we discuss fictional characters and events? 

Should Tyrion Lannister have killed his father Tywin ?

[egg]

9 hours ago, Matthew Le God said:

A) Some people claim that those scriptures are evidence for their belief. So by questioning it I'm questioning the evidence. That makes it a discussion trying to identify the validity of the evidence claims.

B) Strawman fallacy. I did not ask why I can't ask hypothetical questions. A question about if the actions in a story were justified or not is not hypothetical regardless of it being fiction or non fiction. The question was about the word for word actions in a story, there is no hypothetical element to the question.

C) If the death of those babies, fictional or not were not justifiable then it is a flaw on any claim of a loving, fair and just God as described in scripture.

A. We've established that you don't consider actual evidence to be necessary to spark discussion so I'll be be pleased to not see you ask "where's your evidence" each time you don't want to answer something

B. You cannot simultaneously rely on the bible as evidence and call it fictional. Pick a lane.

C. Quelle surprise, that's where your little fishing trip was heading. Try harder mate. 

Edited 2 hours ago by egg