Churchmouse Posted January 24, 2017 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 2,216 Content Per Day: 0.80 Reputation: 1,014 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/29/2016 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/02/1958 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Just now, shiloh357 said: Your use of it was not in the biblical sense, but as profanity. It is violation of the TOS and will not be tolerated in my threads. I use it in the Biblical sense of the word and I mean it as such. Just because I used tinker's in front of it doesn't change it's meaning. As far as your threads, each thread becomes the property of the site once posted. If not then they can't touch what is there. This is not YOUR thread buttercup. It's the sites and If you want to use legalese on me then educate yourself before doing so. I've owned and ran web sites like this one. I've bought and paid for everything and know what is legal and what is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 10 minutes ago, Churchmouse said: I use it in the Biblical sense of the word and I mean it as such. Just because I used tinker's in front of it doesn't change it's meaning. As far as your threads, each thread becomes the property of the site once posted. If not then they can't touch what is there. This is not YOUR thread buttercup. It's the sites and If you want to use legalese on me then educate yourself before doing so. I've owned and ran web sites like this one. I've bought and paid for everything and know what is legal and what is not. It is my thread in the sense that I am the OP and I am not going to tolerate profanity. You can post without using it, just fine. Like it or not, that is how it is going to be. And it is precisely because that it is the property of the site that I have reported it. If it were up to me, I would delete your posts, myself. But that is the mod's job. And I will leave it to the mods to clean it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Gator Posted January 24, 2017 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.67 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted January 24, 2017 2 hours ago, Churchmouse said: I use it in the Biblical sense of the word and I mean it as such. Just because I used tinker's in front of it doesn't change it's meaning. As far as your threads, each thread becomes the property of the site once posted. If not then they can't touch what is there. This is not YOUR thread buttercup. It's the sites and If you want to use legalese on me then educate yourself before doing so. I've owned and ran web sites like this one. I've bought and paid for everything and know what is legal and what is not. The Biblical sense of the word is to be condemned by God to suffer eternal punishment in hell. Every example you gave from the KJV used it in this manner. Please explain how you used it in that manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Churchmouse Posted January 24, 2017 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 2,216 Content Per Day: 0.80 Reputation: 1,014 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/29/2016 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/02/1958 Share Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Out of the Shadows said: The Biblical sense of the word is to be condemned by God to suffer eternal punishment in hell. Every example you gave from the KJV used it in this manner. Please explain how you used it in that manner. Ok, You want to get into this, so be it. A tinker is someone of old that made tin and copper items, such as cups. The tink was the sound that the person made when his hammer hit the item he was producing and from what I've heard was a highly annoying sound. At the time, those within society also held the pastor to be among the highest within society and then you do down from there. If a pastor condemned you, then that was something that was thought coming straight from God and a person or family could and did become ostracized from the entire community. The society would do that, because it was held that God would also condemn the person. Each level of society had its level of authority below that, none was taken to be equal to that of a pastor, but as you went down, the fewer and fewer people would even care what you thought. As was the mentality of the time, God was supposed to honor each member of society by the station they held, which is why the king was always considered divinely appointed , instead of just a hereditary title. As was the mindset God was supposed to listen less to people of lower and lower social standings and then we come to the tinker. People believed that any condemnation from a tinker was also so low on Gods agenda that he might not even listen to that person and actually go through with anything that he might say, thus the term. That is why I used it and it is used in a Biblical sense of the word. There is also references to the idea that a tinker condemned so much that it reduced their condemnations to not in the eyes of the Lord. Edited January 24, 2017 by Churchmouse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SavedByGrace1981 Posted January 24, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 104 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2,924 Content Per Day: 0.61 Reputation: 462 Days Won: 2 Joined: 04/02/2011 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/22/1953 Share Posted January 24, 2017 RE: use of the word 'damn'. I assume Christians of all denominations and backgrounds (and non-Christians as well) frequent this web site, so perhaps 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 applies here: Paul’s Use of His Freedom 19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings. Some times when we get into discussions like this (which is off topic, btw) maybe we should step back a bit. This is not a criticism directed at anyone in particular, just an observation. Blessings, -Ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Churchmouse Posted January 24, 2017 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 2,216 Content Per Day: 0.80 Reputation: 1,014 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/29/2016 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/02/1958 Share Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, shiloh357 said: It is my thread in the sense that I am the OP and I am not going to tolerate profanity. You can post without using it, just fine. Like it or not, that is how it is going to be. And it is precisely because that it is the property of the site that I have reported it. If it were up to me, I would delete your posts, myself. But that is the mod's job. And I will leave it to the mods to clean it up. Like it or not, the staff controls what rights we have or haven't and the Idea that such a thing unnerved you is laughable. You could easily have pm'd me and I would have removed it as I did the last one. I have used that language before and upon any request to remove it, I did. It just seems strange that the only person who in both occasions has pushed the report button, instead of pming me is the same person who I've called out for these trivial little matters like this topic here. I think you should get over yourself, is what I think, but I wasn't the one who turned this personal. Edited January 24, 2017 by Churchmouse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 32 minutes ago, Churchmouse said: Like it or not, the staff controls what rights we have or haven't and the Idea that such a thing unnerved you is laughable. You could easily have pm'd me and I would have removed it as I did the last one. I have used that language before upon request and it just seems strange that the only person who calls this out is you and only when I call you out as a member who concerns himself with these trivial little matters like this topic here. I think you should get over yourself, is what I think, but I wasn't the one who turned this personal. Well, you should have remembered our previous conversation and not used profanity like you did the last time. You did it twice in this thread, and the second time was to spite me. I am not turning it personal at all. I am letting the mods handle it. Using profanity is not trivial, and it is violation of the TOS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Patriot21 Posted January 24, 2017 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 27 Topic Count: 338 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 15,714 Content Per Day: 2.45 Reputation: 8,535 Days Won: 39 Joined: 10/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1985 Share Posted January 24, 2017 After watching the inauguration on NBC (recording) it does appear the crowd thins out towards the back...and even looking at the photo in the post you posted its hard to tell, due to the angle, but again you can see some white spots. It may very well be camera trickery. In order to actually prove it one way or another you would need an image going straight down from above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Churchmouse Posted January 24, 2017 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 2,216 Content Per Day: 0.80 Reputation: 1,014 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/29/2016 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/02/1958 Share Posted January 24, 2017 1 minute ago, shiloh357 said: Well, you should have remembered our previous conversation and not used profanity like you did the last time. You did it twice in this thread, and the second time was to spite me. I am not turning it personal at all. I am letting the mods handle it. Using profanity is not trivial, and it is violation of the TOS. No, as I remember it I showed you the same evidence that I showed you here and you never responded back to that. I took that as irrefutable evidence that you accepted my argument. If your memory fails you, then I still have that pm with you. If you'd like I could post it here for all to see, if you want the actual facts of this little drama to come out. Note that the staff can retrieve any part of any deleted content here including the history of each and ever post as it was posted originally and every edit that wsa saved after the initial post. These sites are placed on servers which are just an oversized computer. The techy can go in and retrieve or remove anything that is imprinted on the hard drive there. What I was referring to when I said trivial is the topic here. This idiotic little snippet of time in which the media again has shown it's rear end will be forgotten far quicker than it would have been If people would not bring it up and keep it alive for days upon days. Why is it so important? It Is because people have the chance to get their 15 minutes of fame and the accolades of those who agree with them. That is why the media did it and that is why those people who brought it up here did. The intention was the same and that is to inject themselves into something to justify their beliefs. That my friend is trivial and those who think this important, In my opinion should look around and get a real life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Churchmouse Posted January 24, 2017 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 2,216 Content Per Day: 0.80 Reputation: 1,014 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/29/2016 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/02/1958 Share Posted January 24, 2017 4 minutes ago, The_Patriot2017 said: After watching the inauguration on NBC (recording) it does appear the crowd thins out towards the back...and even looking at the photo in the post you posted its hard to tell, due to the angle, but again you can see some white spots. It may very well be camera trickery. In order to actually prove it one way or another you would need an image going straight down from above. Agreed. but what would it effect what happens after this. That's what is important. This is only a distraction, without maret. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts