How, exactly, can anyone verify that this is true and not just imagination, fantasy or fraud?

That someone said or wrote their OPINION and stories (ancient or modern) about a favorite supernatural entity (among thousands proposed) is NOT evidence that what they say is true or accurate.

Excellent business plan. Manufacture a "need", offer a "solution", charge for your service, call income a donation and gain tax exempt status.

Heck no.

I tell them that it should be easy to find a comedian since there are so many out of work that they hang around forums trying to be funny.

Won a thread????

What a warped perspective or objective.

Thank you for clarifying your position.

On the other hand:





Quite the contrary -- my best friend, who lives on my property two hundred feet away, is devoted to her dog, a big Staffordshire / German shepherd mix. She has professional experience working with dogs and has put in the time and effort to teach the dog how to behave and to eagerly follow commands. To her I said, "Your dog is welcome in my home any time." It is a pleasure to see the two of them together. They are inseparable but if she tells him to lie down, for instance, he does so until given a release command.

Also, I have been a dog owner in the past and occasionally toy with the idea of having a dog again --�� but do not want the limitations associated with pet ownership --�� and don't relish the idea of again putting in the time and effort to train a dog to be well behaved (to about the same level as my friend's).

My "beef" is against irresponsible, excuse-making pet owners who allow their animals to annoy or disturb people. And, to making "love animals" (and children and gods) a precondition for FRIENDSHIP. It may be understandable (and wise) that someone devoted to their pets would not choose to live with someone who disliked the animals. Is cohabitation / coupledom / mating THE objective in friendship or "seeing someone?" Will animals be going along on "dates?"

If my friend and I were romantically involved or cohabiting (which we are not by mutual agreement and by virtue of a great age difference), she would be sensible enough to accept that my affection would be upon her, not the dog --�� and to not expect me to be a "dog lover" because she is and she has a dog. "Get along" would probably suffice.

Thank you Jack for illustrating reasoning and responsibility as a pet owner. When people think and act as you do there are few problems.

Notice that there no one seems to know what "god" IS.

Perhaps that is understandable. Since an omnipotent entity is incomprehensible to humans, how can some claim to know about it?

Although nobody KNOWS, many purport to know after reading ancient texts or listening to lectures -- from people who CLAIM knowledge of the supernatural and tell stories about such things.

It appears to be "the blind leading the blind" and all thinking that those who do not join their procession of worship will be punished in an "afterlife" (which cannot be shown to be anything more than imagination).

I'm one of the guys trying to message you -- and was foiled again because I acknowledge smoking a pipe (which shouldn't be too offensive from 2000 miles away).

I think (not sure) that if you drop me a note I can respond

Three new scammers this evening. I announce that "Funds are dispersed on the second Tuesday of each week upon receipt of 501(c) certification."

Agreed. However, much (most?) indirect behavior tends to be outside one's sphere of influence.

If, for simplistic example, someone leaves a board with a nail and we step on it the effect is indirect. However, if that person deliberately steps on our foot the effect is direct. I am unlikely to make a response in the first case but very likely to make one in the latter.

On a more practical level, when religionists proselytize to others there may be an indirect effect (perhaps through influencing community "standards" or mores). However, if the proselytizing is toward us personally, the effect is direct. I seldom react adversely to the former but do to the latter.

Of course it is a "grudge against pet owners" to expect that owners be responsible enough to avoid inflicting their pets on ANYONE who does not welcome animal contact (for whatever reason).



Of course not, "she's just friendly"

Navygirl, Still blocked because I smoke a pipe -- but at least I am not married and not seeking an intimate encounter.

I think (not sure) that if you drop a note I can reply.

Navygirl, I admire the way you think and write -- and would have sent a PM to that effect if not precluded by age restriction filter.

Since you ask, TawtStrat, for one, is vigorously making excuses for a pet ("just being friendly")

Although everyone is entitled to their chosen order of priorities, I choose to not get in line behind pets, children and religion (though other people may find it acceptable).

I opened the thread after a site sent me five "matches" -- four of which had one or more of the "qualifiers" mentioned (and the fifth appeared to outweigh me considerably).

If you (generic term) encountered a man who was (hypothetically) an ideal mate in every way EXCEPT "loving" pets, animals and god (perhaps neutral regarding all three), would you reject the relationship?

Correction: 1) company of people need not involve "dating". Friendship does not equate to courtship. 2)I have not encountered women here with whom I choose to spend time. Most are far away; some are obsessed with pets, children, food, entertainment, etc; very few are physically fit or active (my obsession); and none seem compatible (for various reasons).

If someone remarkable came along, wonderful -- if not, I am quite content without "dating" or "seeing someone". A solo, unattached lifestyle has many advantages -- without drama, obligations and/or imported baggage.

The forums and profiles seem more a form of entertainment or fantasy than a serious attempt toward relationships.

Sometimes it almost seems that way.



People are making excuses for their pets HERE





Interesting priorities and perspectives

I, personally prefer adult human relationships over love relationships with animals

It has been said that the most effective enemies of any cause are those who attempt to defend or promote it with ignorance, hostility and diversion. Apply wherever appropriate



"Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1.Topic A is under discussion.
2.Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3.Topic A is abandoned.

This sort of 'reasoning' is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim."
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html



NONE -- absolutely none. I consider "celebrating" "holidays" to be foolish (for myself) and obligatory gifting and gaiety to be even more foolish -- and I do not participate.



Nice try



When one runs out of "arguments" they can always try false assumptions and personal attack.

Perhaps it would be prudent to check the posts to see if anyone was personally identified -- and discover that what was said was in the form of general (not personal) statements.

If the shoe doesn't fit don't wear it

Back to the topic of the thread:

I actually appreciate "must love animals, children and god" because that identifies the priorities in a person's life -- and eliminates any need for me to waste time making contact.

In return, I attempt to save the time of many women by indicating that I expect a partner to be equal (not identical) mentally, physically and personally (though for friendship only, less is expected).

I am aware of no valid excuse for having an uncontrolled pet animal anywhere but on one's own property or residence. The excuse, "It is just friendly" is extremely inconsiderate --�� many people do not like contact with animals, some are afraid of or allergic to animals, some have had bad experiences with animals in the past. In public they have a right to be unmolested by the "pets" of others.

Children can be traumatized by a "friendly" dog. People wearing nice clothes probably don't relish animal hair, saliva or paw prints. Those with nice vehicles perhaps do not wish to be "greeted" by a dog jumping on or a cat climbing on their car. Any who prefer to avoid fleas, ticks and animal-associated diseases do not desire close contact.

In one's own domain it is a different matter; however, visitors should be made aware that they will be entering an area that serves as animal housing and that they may be subject to various animal behaviors.