Viewing Thread:
"Do animals have a religion?"

I was thinking that just seemed kinda natural that not only humans would have some kind of religion, what do you think?

'kay...one of the spamming posts reported.

Yeah, I know I'm doing it mainly cos he's a smear of rancid scumbutter. But also it's cos I HATE seeing people do this to message boards. Happened to one I used to go to and ruined it utterly...

True.

I'd just like to point out that he has chosen to spam every thread apart from the Rush Limbaugh one.
Spam away Bell, feel free to quote post after post after post.

And I seem to remember that Belldandy has previously used word count as measure of a person on these forums. This is a nice and easy way to do a few fairly lengthy posts.

Fiery Salamander wrote:
> Gigs wrote:
> Without any religion would the world have any hope atall?
>
> without mankind the world breath a sigh of relief

Totally agree

Ah, so you *are* continuing the popping with no point.
Y'know, that could be considered spamming.
Which, as we all know, is a bannable offence.

Light wrote:
> Belldandy wrote:
> Light wrote:
> So, I'll ask again; just because you lack the imagination to discuss
> an abstract topic, do you think others should refrain from doing so?
>
> No, but neither does that mean I cannot say I believe it's
> pointless.
>
> True enough, you can.
>
> And once again you've not actually done anything on topic, but what
> the heck, that's not new.
>
>
> But as I HAVE actually given my thoughts on this topic (just scroll
> down; there's a post from me giving my opinion. Do you see?), that
> sorta proves that you haven't even read the thread at all; just waded
> in with more MeMonkeyness. Just like the coward that you are.

Belldandy wrote:
> Light wrote:
> So, I'll ask again; just because you lack the imagination to discuss
> an abstract topic, do you think others should refrain from doing so?
>
> No, but neither does that mean I cannot say I believe it's pointless.

True enough, you can.

> And once again you've not actually done anything on topic, but what
> the heck, that's not new.


But as I HAVE actually given my thoughts on this topic (just scroll down; there's a post from me giving my opinion. Do you see?), that sorta proves that you haven't even read the thread at all; just waded in with more MeMonkeyness. Just like the coward that you are.

Light wrote:
> So, I'll ask again; just because you lack the imagination to discuss
> an abstract topic, do you think others should refrain from doing so?

No, but neither does that mean I cannot say I believe it's pointless. And once again you've not actually done anything on topic, but what the heck, that's not new.

I saw a moth at a church once

Belldandy wrote:

>
> So you can't actually add anything to the topic then ? Thought not,
> I'd have expected someone like you to campaign for all animals to
> have a religion, pension, rights, social security benefits, equal
> housing rights....


Ah, the fundamentalist attempt to goad an angry reaction...

For the record: Addressing your belief that, as you're not interested in this topic, it's not important, IS related to the original subject. Do you see?

I'm now simply addressing the post of another. Or should I, on a public access forum, not be allowed to post something to challenge the ignorant cowardice of another?

So, I'll ask again; just because you lack the imagination to discuss an abstract topic, do you think others should refrain from doing so?