It's funny you talk of sneering. A quick look on your blogs shows your own comments thereon towards other commenters to be not so different, littered as they are with put downs and mockery. Perhaps you should reflect on yourself if you don't like sneering. Let he who is without sin...
His site rubbed me the wrong way. I think I'm a neo-atheist (translation: poorly educated and read) and it got my back hairs up. But it did make me read some, think some, and add to my awesomeness.
I always find it funny when someone attacks me with baseless sneering, fails to substantiate it and then starts whining about me being a bully. Again - learn your lesson. If you hadn't been so stupid as to poke your nose in with an argument you couldn't sustain, you wouldn't have got your snout whacked. Think next time. As for my tone with some commenters on my blog, here is the relevant portion of my FAQ: "“Why are you sometimes rude or sarcastic on this blog?” Because it’s my blog and so I’ll post on it my way. I sometimes find the endless repetition of the same pseudo historical myths in atheist circles frustrating and so I deal with that in my own manner – usually with some wry good humour and irony that can come across to some (mainly Americans of the irony-deficient variety and/or the people I’m criticising) as “rude”. I make no apologies about that, though if I am being harsh I do at least try to also be funny. In responding to comments I have a general policy of being civil to anyone the first two times they post, but after that I give back what I get. Civil comments, even if critical, generally get polite responses. Trolls and idiots don’t."
No, actually. There is a difference between making a solid point or argument that may have a sharp edge or sarcasm to it and the kind of weak sneering we saw from that El Chup guy above. The former has substance and evidence behind it. The latter pretends to, but in the end has nothing much at all. Sneering like that is all bluff - which is why when challenged on it that that El Chup guy had to resort to failed attempts at dodging and then feeble whining. As I keep saying - I give back what I get. Several civil people here who actually wanted to discuss history have had perfectly civil responses from me. Weak little sneering bluffers and dodgers get whacked on the snout. Pick which response you want and engage appropriately. It's really not hard.
I can only go on what I've seen. If he can do more than that kind of flaccid bluffing then that's great. But he tried something stupid with me and got schooled. It was his choice, not mine.
You made a stupid sneering claim and couldn't back it up when challenged, because you were bluffing. You then whined like a spoiled child when confronted by that fact, but couldn't deny you had failed to support your claim. Schooled. You may want to stop drawing attention to your failure here. If you're smart that is. Now, does anyone want to actually discuss any relevant ancient history or are we done here?
You haven't "schooled" me on shit. Only the most pompous of pompous would sign up to a message board where they know nobody has likely to have spent remotely as much time reading on the subject, pick on every post they think contains an error and then expect that person to have comparative experience. I refer you back to post #82. It's like me telling everyone on here that I've "schooled" them because I know more about my area of law than they do. It's an insufferable attitude and it's why people aren't exactly rushing to support you on here, no matter your excessive armour propre.
Well, as things were progressing here at first, I was hopeful that I'd learn something about the Dark Ages. Now it's just TLDR arguing, so, so much for that.
At least when you were shooting your mouth off about the Irish famine you had the good sense to stop after I corrected you.
You "corrected me"? Your claim that it was equal to genocide was bullshit then and is bullshit now. Claim a win all you like. Doesn't make you right.
Wow. Please try to keep up. No, I didn't school you on history. I schooled you on the stupidity of making a sneering attack that you could not substantiate - that "cherry picking" and "picking and choosing" historians slur you started in Post 78 and then could not sustain when challenged, remember? Then you began this weird whining about how you can't be expected to know the historical subject matter in question and how MEAN I am for whipping you over your "cherry picking" claim because you don't know the historians in question. So I had to school you again about your stupid sneering slur, noting that if you didn't know the material or the historians, you simply could not have made the claim I "cherry picked" my sources in the first place. See - schooled. Now you can't even keep track of how you've failed here. Hilarious. Seriously dude - give up. Exactly. Some people should know when they are beaten. Yes, it's pretty dull. I'm happy to discuss the concept of the so-called "dark ages", why historians now generally avoid using that term for the Middle Ages and why most ideas many people have about that period are wrong if you like.
That wasn't @RickDeckard 's claim and it wasn't mine either, you and your ilk just like to make shit up about people.
Another skeptic in a long and unending line of self-important intellectuals who wants to try to debunk and defame Christianity. Those like @garamet will lap it up and applaud its alleged revelations.
Luckily, I don't have an ilk. I think I once had a cronie, in high school, but I didn't like his ilk, so I dumped him.
