Why guys cannot confess their feelings like a MAN?
-
Originally posted by ExtraVehicular:
It is quite ironic how parn is calling SturmDerSchatten a 'loser clone', when any person moderately well-acquainted with feminist forums would immediately identify her as one of those 'loser clones' who like to bash the percieved lack of certain qualities in men to make up for their own inadequacy.
Also, her definition of 'weak' does not seem to conform to any known definition. If she likes to reinvent certain words, might I suggest one of my own creation?
parn
1) To act in a manner consistent with that of an utter idiot towards someone.
e.g. She kept parning me, so I bitchslapped her to Kenya.
No worry, more and more forumers are getting to know more and more of her. Ha ha ha. There are already a number of them kena before. She is that sort of unforgiving woman. I already place our differences aside and move on, one day she challenged me trying to provoke me. I can't be bothered. This kind of woman mei wan mei liao.
-
Originally posted by SturmDerSchatten:
Is that the best you can do? Call me a "clone" once you run out of credible points? Going by the common definition of "clone", that would mean my account would be new. Would you please care to look a little to the left and see when my account was created? I do not to have to own up to being a clone or anything, simply because I am not a clone.
I did NOT condemn you as despicable; I said your contempt was despicable. Now, if you find yourself to be one with the tone of your message, then there is little I can say.
How do I know you are a follower of Christ? Simple. Look at what you posted in the first few pages of this thread. I actually read most of what has been said in this entire thread before I posted.
Indication in Page 2: "Gender difference exists for a reason and it's determined by GOD." Note the capitalization of the entire word. Most of the time, it is the followers of the Abrahamic religions who do so.
"Clones simply does not have any credibility in my opinion, and be grateful that I even bothered to reply you."
Neither do people who perform fantastic acts of hypocrisy within the span of one thread page. All the same, I am flattered that you decided to supposedly "descend to my level" to speak to me and respond.
"And yes, your faith and relationship with GOD is DEFINITELY QUESTIONABLE."
Alright, since you play this game, then evidence, miss, please give me the evidence. I'm not asking for proof, but arguable evidence.
"Certainly this has proven that knowing alot about the Bible verses, certainly does not makes you a living follower of GOD, it only makes you a dead follower who thinks he know GOD, but GOD does not know you."
What has proven what? I see no evidence supporting that statement, and I'm not even sure what you speak of! Moreover, I do not have to demonstrate my faith to you, simply because there is no real way I can do anything to convince you. You can call me a dead follower all you want, but I know the truth in my heart. And that last bit, who are you to say that?
"Do you not realised that you have proven my BOLD points which you have quoted me?
You need to be more positive in your life and DO not surrender to your own anger, cos that's clearly a sign of weakness.
It's never too late to seek GOD again."
Proven? How? You can't just claim something is proven when you haven't demonstrated the process to us. How have I been weak, then?
I'll be honest, I am growing to be positive in my life. What I have to say, however, is that I am not surrendering to my own anger. I am not angry at anything. I am simply in great disagreement with your less-than-moderate opinions. If you feel that I am, then I apologize for the passion in my argument (if that were a wrong in the first place).
As for your last statement, again, I know where I stand with God.
"The contempt you show here is despicable, and you call yourself a follower of Christ." ---> If you claimed to have a relationship with GOD and know where you stand with GOD, then you should know better than to doubt another follower's faith. And if you do not like your own faith/relationship with GOD to be questioned, DO NOT START to question other people's faith/relationship with GOD. Did you not learn from the Bible that you should NOT question another follower's faith/relationship with GOD?
"I did NOT condemn you as despicable; I said your contempt was despicable." ----------> If commenting on my contempt as despicable and you insists that you did not condemn me as despicable, then whose contempt were you referring to as despicable? Denying your intentions when you have stated in your sentence above is clearly an act of cowardice.
"Is that the best you can do? Call me a "clone" once you run out of credible points? Going by the common definition of "clone", that would mean my account would be new. Would you please care to look a little to the left and see when my account was created? I do not to have to own up to being a clone or anything, simply because I am not a clone." -----> Are you saying clones should be determined by the date they joined sgForums? Are you really that NAIVE? Anyway it doesn't matters to me if you're a clone, cos I don't really care if you are. You seems to be quite agitated when I called you a clone, and I won't be as agitated as you and even bothered arguing about that if you had called me a clone too.
"Indication in Page 2: "Gender difference exists for a reason and it's determined by GOD." Note the capitalization of the entire word. Most of the time, it is the followers of the Abrahamic religions who do so." ------> So how is this supposed to tell you I'm a follower of Christ and not the rest of the other Abrahamic religions? Explain yourself or you can always run away.
"I'll be honest, I am growing to be positive in my life. What I have to say, however, is that I am not surrendering to my own anger. I am not angry at anything. I am simply in great disagreement with your less-than-moderate opinions." ------> Other than getting personal about my post, you have yet to speak about your disagreement against my opinions. Instead of making another comment about my opinions as "less-than-moderate", why don't you state your own opinions then?
"Neither do people who perform fantastic acts of hypocrisy within the span of one thread page. All the same, I am flattered that you decided to supposedly "descend to my level" to speak to me and respond." ------> Don't think too highly of yourself unless it has been proven. Still, you should be happy that I bothered to reply...unlike the rest.
-
Originally posted by newcomer:
think parn shud change her (i have a sneaking suspicion this person may not be sure of his/her sexual orientuation) nick to parwned.
Your suspicion was so right....actually........I
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
......AM
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
......YOUR
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.......FATHER.
-
Originally posted by Fantagf:
No worry, more and more forumers are getting to know more and more of her. Ha ha ha. There are already a number of them kena before. She is that sort of unforgiving woman. I already place our differences aside and move on, one day she challenged me trying to provoke me. I can't be bothered. This kind of woman mei wan mei liao.
Maybe I should ask FireIce to ban you for spamming hate private messages to my Mailbox? -
Originally posted by rainee:
It is very funny you kept asking people not to make assumptions or generalization, but you kept making them yourself. It is like the pot calling the kettle black. We are all learning well from your example here.
Did I? Anyway assumptions and generalization would require a certain amount of truth to be in it for people to believe.
Unlike you, I don't bother to chase after on your many posts.
-
Originally posted by ExtraVehicular:
It is quite ironic how parn is calling SturmDerSchatten a 'loser clone', when any person moderately well-acquainted with feminist forums would immediately identify her as one of those 'loser clones' who like to bash the percieved lack of certain qualities in men to make up for their own inadequacy.
Also, her definition of 'weak' does not seem to conform to any known definition. If she likes to reinvent certain words, might I suggest one of my own creation?
parn
1) To act in a manner consistent with that of an utter idiot towards someone.
e.g. She kept parning me, so I bitchslapped her to Kenya.
LOL.....another one down.
-
Originally posted by parn:
Did I? Anyway assumptions and generalization would require a certain amount of truth to be in it for people to believe.
Unlike you, I don't bother to chase after on your many posts.
I don't bother to chase after your many posts either. I just happened to see your reply where you accused someone of being a clone with no concrete evidence and decided to reply here.
-
I confessed and she reciprocated. happy ending! although now break le, but at least it was fun than.
And I will confess to the next one too, when the time comes.
-
Originally posted by parn:
"The contempt you show here is despicable, and you call yourself a follower of Christ." ---> If you claimed to have a relationship with GOD and know where you stand with GOD, then you should know better than to doubt another follower's faith. And if you do not like your own faith/relationship with GOD to be questioned, DO NOT START to question other people's faith/relationship with GOD. Did you not learn from the Bible that you should NOT question another follower's faith/relationship with GOD?
"I did NOT condemn you as despicable; I said your contempt was despicable." ----------> If commenting on my contempt as despicable and you insists that you did not condemn me as despicable, then whose contempt were you referring to as despicable? Denying your intentions when you have stated in your sentence above is clearly an act of cowardice.
"Is that the best you can do? Call me a "clone" once you run out of credible points? Going by the common definition of "clone", that would mean my account would be new. Would you please care to look a little to the left and see when my account was created? I do not to have to own up to being a clone or anything, simply because I am not a clone." -----> Are you saying clones should be determined by the date they joined sgForums? Are you really that NAIVE? Anyway it doesn't matters to me if you're a clone, cos I don't really care if you are. You seems to be quite agitated when I called you a clone, and I won't be as agitated as you and even bothered arguing about that if you had called me a clone too.
"Indication in Page 2: "Gender difference exists for a reason and it's determined by GOD." Note the capitalization of the entire word. Most of the time, it is the followers of the Abrahamic religions who do so." ------> So how is this supposed to tell you I'm a follower of Christ and not the rest of the other Abrahamic religions? Explain yourself or you can always run away.
"I'll be honest, I am growing to be positive in my life. What I have to say, however, is that I am not surrendering to my own anger. I am not angry at anything. I am simply in great disagreement with your less-than-moderate opinions." ------> Other than getting personal about my post, you have yet to speak about your disagreement against my opinions. Instead of making another comment about my opinions as "less-than-moderate", why don't you state your own opinions then?
"Neither do people who perform fantastic acts of hypocrisy within the span of one thread page. All the same, I am flattered that you decided to supposedly "descend to my level" to speak to me and respond." ------> Don't think too highly of yourself unless it has been proven. Still, you should be happy that I bothered to reply...unlike the rest.
Now, now, you should know better than to put words into my mouth. Did I question your faith? No, I acknowledged it and found it to be incompatible with the behaviour you have shown here. I did not call you names, I did not try and categorize your faith, which would be the wild error you have commited. I merely remarked that if you call yourself a follower of Christ, you would do better than to show condemnation and immense hypocrisy.
"If commenting on my contempt as despicable and you insists that you did not condemn me as despicable, then whose contempt were you referring to as despicable? Denying your intentions when you have stated in your sentence above is clearly an act of cowardice."
Simple. I refer to the contempt you have shown. Please realize that when I rebuke a person's actions, it does not mean I rebuke that person. Cowardice would be to completely deny I performed any comment of the sort. In that case, I have performed the opposite; I have acknowledged that I have said your contempt is despicable.
"So how is this supposed to tell you I'm a follower of Christ and not the rest of the other Abrahamic religions? Explain yourself or you can always run away."
I shall not run away. Instead, I call my trap card. Indeed, I did not know if you were a Christian, Jew or Muslim. However, I took a gamble, because given the probabilities:
1. You are most likely not a Jew, given that you type and speak English like a native of Singapore.
2. You could have been a Muslim, but so far, judging from the way you have spoken and responded to my queries, I can conclude you are a Christian.
"Are you saying clones should be determined by the date they joined sgForums? Are you really that NAIVE? Anyway it doesn't matters to me if you're a clone, cos I don't really care if you are. You seems to be quite agitated when I called you a clone, and I won't be as agitated as you and even bothered arguing about that if you had called me a clone too."
Did you realize I said "going by the common definition of clone"? Most people would agree on clones to be random accounts simply springing up to make scorching remarks then disappearing forever. I concede that clones can be long running accounts, but that is not the point. You called me a clone with no evidence whatsoever and I countered that point. And please, you call it "agitation", I call it "a decisive end" to that point of contention. If I made a half-baked remark trying to refute it, you would have further taken the offensive, wouldn't you?
"Other than getting personal about my post, you have yet to speak about your disagreement against my opinions. Instead of making another comment about my opinions as "less-than-moderate", why don't you state your own opinions then?"
Personal? Whoever told you this was getting personal? In debates, we call getting personal "ad hominem". The insults I see don't seem to be coming from my direction. My own opinions? Why, dear lady, I'm pretty sure you already know what my opinions are, if you were to judge from my stand on your views.
"Don't think too highly of yourself unless it has been proven. Still, you should be happy that I bothered to reply...unlike the rest.
"Au contraire, you should not think too highly of yourself. Read: sarcasm was meant to be in my comment.
Who are the rest? And please, that angelic smiley at the end is akin to smiling sweetly and saying "you alright?" after slugging someone in the face.
-
come on lah both of you are chrisitians. no need to flame your own brethens.
-
Originally posted by newcomer:
come on lah both of you are chrisitians. no need to flame your own brethens.
Well, we're all humans, why can't we all get along? : P
-
precisely. when did this become a religion thread
-
now will be a good time to kiss and make up.
-
group hug?
-
Depends on whether there's a consensus at all >_>
-
maybe a nice present will win her over?
-
Originally posted by skythewood:
maybe a nice present will win her over?
give her present, then she will say that you think she no money buy her own present, sure reject it, and kena suan
even if it is a 30K diamond ring
-
and you have to say a whole lot of confessions like a man before she'll even consider.
-
wooo... 30k is like 10 months salary for the average singaporeans (3k/month).
If this becomes a norm, the jewellry industry will be laughing all the way to the bank.
-
Originally posted by newcomer:
and you have to say a whole lot of confessions like a man before she'll even consider.
Hehe. So much for being a man and making your own way without submitting to others.
-
Originally posted by skythewood:
If this becomes a norm, the jewellry industry will be laughing all the way to the bank.
and all because women go crazy of a shiny lump of carbon
-
Originally posted by thehappybunny:
and all because women go crazy of a shiny lump of carbon
why would you want a 30k ring? future investment, because it is pretty, or want to show off to friends?
-
Originally posted by skythewood:
why would you want a 30k ring? future investment, because it is pretty, or want to show off to friends?
beats me
-
Originally posted by skythewood:
why would you want a 30k ring? future investment, because it is pretty, or want to show off to friends?
WTF 30k??? I dun think that stuff can be used for investment... Afterall designers come out with new ideas every season to be worn by celebs and the jewellery become damn famous after that.
-
Originally posted by SturmDerSchatten:
Now, now, you should know better than to put words into my mouth. Did I question your faith? No, I acknowledged it and found it to be incompatible with the behaviour you have shown here. I did not call you names, I did not try and categorize your faith, which would be the wild error you have commited. I merely remarked that if you call yourself a follower of Christ, you would do better than to show condemnation and immense hypocrisy.
"If commenting on my contempt as despicable and you insists that you did not condemn me as despicable, then whose contempt were you referring to as despicable? Denying your intentions when you have stated in your sentence above is clearly an act of cowardice."
Simple. I refer to the contempt you have shown. Please realize that when I rebuke a person's actions, it does not mean I rebuke that person. Cowardice would be to completely deny I performed any comment of the sort. In that case, I have performed the opposite; I have acknowledged that I have said your contempt is despicable.
"So how is this supposed to tell you I'm a follower of Christ and not the rest of the other Abrahamic religions? Explain yourself or you can always run away."
I shall not run away. Instead, I call my trap card. Indeed, I did not know if you were a Christian, Jew or Muslim. However, I took a gamble, because given the probabilities:
1. You are most likely not a Jew, given that you type and speak English like a native of Singapore.
2. You could have been a Muslim, but so far, judging from the way you have spoken and responded to my queries, I can conclude you are a Christian.
"Are you saying clones should be determined by the date they joined sgForums? Are you really that NAIVE? Anyway it doesn't matters to me if you're a clone, cos I don't really care if you are. You seems to be quite agitated when I called you a clone, and I won't be as agitated as you and even bothered arguing about that if you had called me a clone too."
Did you realize I said "going by the common definition of clone"? Most people would agree on clones to be random accounts simply springing up to make scorching remarks then disappearing forever. I concede that clones can be long running accounts, but that is not the point. You called me a clone with no evidence whatsoever and I countered that point. And please, you call it "agitation", I call it "a decisive end" to that point of contention. If I made a half-baked remark trying to refute it, you would have further taken the offensive, wouldn't you?
"Other than getting personal about my post, you have yet to speak about your disagreement against my opinions. Instead of making another comment about my opinions as "less-than-moderate", why don't you state your own opinions then?"
Personal? Whoever told you this was getting personal? In debates, we call getting personal "ad hominem". The insults I see don't seem to be coming from my direction. My own opinions? Why, dear lady, I'm pretty sure you already know what my opinions are, if you were to judge from my stand on your views.
"Don't think too highly of yourself unless it has been proven. Still, you should be happy that I bothered to reply...unlike the rest.
"Au contraire, you should not think too highly of yourself. Read: sarcasm was meant to be in my comment.
Who are the rest? And please, that angelic smiley at the end is akin to smiling sweetly and saying "you alright?" after slugging someone in the face.
"Please realize that when I rebuke a person's actions, it does not mean I rebuke that person." -------> This is not correct. Rebuking a person's action is indirectly rebuking that person.
"I'm pretty sure you already know what my opinions are, if you were to judge from my stand on your views." ------> You are still not able to share your opinion, and I cannot comment further unless you are able to share your opinions.
"I merely remarked that if you call yourself a follower of Christ, you would do better than to show condemnation and immense hypocrisy." -----> That is an act of questioning my faith which I have every right to question yours. IF you do not understand my post, you have every right to determine they are acts of condemnation and immense hypocrisy. And that's all up to you to figure out by yourself.
"Did you realize I said "going by the common definition of clone"? " -----> This is exactly why I commented you are being very naive to have such definition of clone. Maybe someone with a clone will be able to help you better? You have failed to figure out the initial need for having a clone.
Anyway, this could be my last reply to your post. I don't see the value of replying when you are not able to produce a better opinion against mine, with regards to the topic.