On 2016-01-27 01:19, Virgil Arrington wrote:
I can't believe the level of antagonism coming through your keyboard.
I'm "clueless" for not knowing Nasrin's gender? Harsh, man. While I
have many contacts with Muslims from around the world, I had never
heard the name Nasrin before and recalled nothing in her emails that
betrayed her gender.
If choosing to love people, regardless of my knowledge of their
gender, is an agenda, then I suppose I have an agenda. I'm genuinely
surprised that my decision to love a Muslim I've never met upsets you
so much that you feel it necessary to accuse me of having "low general
knowledge" and being "clueless." Where does such a miserable world
view come from?
Just observation - you believe in sky fairies and supporting others who
are attacked for proselytising their sky fairies because an attack on
one sky fairy is an attack on all sky fairies . .
I won't use the LO list to advance my views of Christianity.
Good - and others should not use it to advance their superstitions
other lists for that, where it is admittedly more appropriate. But, I
reserve the right to come to the defense of another who has been
unfairly attacked for what she happened to put in her signature line.
(I'll blindly accept your assertion that Nasrin is female.) I felt
your attack unwarranted and unworthy of a gentlemen, regardless of
your religious views.
Well if you weren't clueless (which is not consistent with you believing
in fairy stories) you would have realised by now that I don't have any
and that I don't approve of others proselytising on this list . .
Sorry, Tom, I had to respond to Phil, and I felt I had to do it on
I'll let it go, now.
On 01/25/2016 11:37 PM, Philip Rhoades wrote:
On 2016-01-26 07:24, Virgil Arrington wrote:
On 01/25/2016 01:40 PM, jomali wrote:
Please note that the original message by Nasrin was on a topic
this list. One member with an excessively tender sore spot objected
something in Nasrin's signature that expressed his sincerely held
There was no intent on Nasrin's part to proselytize or to demean
faith, as Phil's diatribe does.
I tend to agree about signature lines. They can contain all kinds of
things having nothing to do with LO. Sometimes they're funny;
That would be fine . .
times they are informative about the writer. Phil's signature line
includes his address in Australia, which is informative, but has
nothing to do with LO. Nasrin's signature line includes a a few lines
about his Muslim faith,
Another person with low general knowledge . . again I am not surprised
also informative but also having nothing to do
I pretty much ignore signature lines, and I can't possibly imagine
being offended by one, regardless of what it might say.
a Christian who loves Muslims
And there we have it - another person who has an agenda - they can't
criticise someone else for proselytising their superstitious nonsense
because they have their own superstitious nonsense . . a person who
"loves" someone else but does not even know that the person they
"love" is a "she" and not a "he" . . clueless . .
PO Box 896
Cowra NSW 2794
To unsubscribe e-mail to: firstname.lastname@example.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Impressum (Legal Info)
: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our trademark policy