You believe my unbelief is the result of my being a nuclear/particle physicist?
<--
maybe, maybe not; u wouldn't be the first by any means. methinks my intent was to "investigate" your attitude/pride level. SO far, so good.
As I explained, your questions cannot be answered
per CF rules. Let's go through this from the beginning.
You began by asking me questions about the particulars of the Wiccan religion (
post #361) - the kinds of Wiccans, its relation to ethics and morality, etc.
I replied that, per CF rules, I cannot answer those questions. If I do, the thread gets reported or shut down, and I get warnings or even get a temporary ban.
Despite that quite reasonable reason for declining to answer, you instead concluded that I was avoiding the questions, stating that I could have PM'd you if I was "hungry to be understood" (
post #366).
I replied that it
never occurred hmmm, didn't see that reply to me to answer your questions via PM. Most people either PM me directly, or ask questions that I'm allowed to answer. Nevertheless, I said, you're free to PM me if you so wish.
like many, I'm not fond of repeating myself or "work/efforts" if not absolutely necessary. (one of my flaws perhaps? hmmm, working on it; lol)
But no PM has been received, so I figured you simply didn't care that much. But then you butted into my discussion with 'now faith', declaring that I won't answer questions and instead make excuses (despite the fact that CF rules really do forbid me from answering; I'm not going to risk a ban for that) (
post #372).<---
strange u go out of yer way to list/link & repeat for me (thanks, but...) all that needn't be repeated EXCEPT for my questions. I've asked others questions that they felt the need or it "occurred" to them to do so via PM. I believe I invited u to do so. u didn't, which is your prerogative but then u play the CF rules card, which doesn't pertain to PM quite as much as these public postings/threads.
I believed u intelligent enough to understand all of this w/out explanation but methinks I assumed too much judging by yer responses hence. "my bad," in todays parlance.
You asked questions I am forbidden to publicly answer. I didn't answer your questions because the rules forbid it. Quite why you're making hysterical accusations is beyond me.
Why? It's quite obvious we were responding to 'now faith' at the same time, and I finished my post first. My point is that you made wild accusations about me that turned out to be completely untrue - despite your predictions, I
did respond to 'now faith', and since my post appeared before yours, it was of my own volition.
Frankly, you owe me an apology for jumping the shark.
u have my apologies for assuming too much/misunderstanding u (but certainly not for 'jumping the shark' whatever THAT means/entails...lol)
You should take your own advice. Notice that my sentences ended with a '?', a question mark - I was asking a question, not "inflicting my problem" upon your thinking. <---
granted.
The point is that the adage doesn't make sense. Atheists are better at finding rotten eggs than laying them? By any interpretation that would seem to be a good thing, yet your tone suggests it's a bad thing. Hence my puzzlement. Of course, instead of making snarky remarks you could have elucidated on your point, but no, instead I have to endure your snide insults.
oh do forgive me for leaving out an apparently necessary adjective:
"GOOD" as in, normal, healthy, (etc) eggs. Now do u "see?" atheists with an inherent negative bias (see Richard dawkins et al) lay &/or find the rotten/rotting eggs instead of laying &/or finding GOOD ones (eggs).
Well, if I had to guess, 'HimiH' seems to be an initilism of your username (I can only speculate why you refer to yourself in the third person; are you royalty?),<--
actually, yes I am...by adoption specifically. But that's beyond u for now, unless u know more about the NT than u "let on" currently. and 'n-p-p' seems to be an initilism of 'nuclear particle physicist'.<---very good;