Gazrok,
I'm back BTW. Yes, I agree with you, we can have passionate, sometimes heated, discussions without personal attacks and hard feelings. At least I hope so.
BTW, I didn't realize that Brent had put me on 'ignore'. That explains why he hadn't answered some questions I had put to him. Oh well. While I usually strongly disagree with him, I didn't 'ignore' him as he does make a point from time to time and is fairly respectful (both of which toexist never did).
I know I tick off some people here with my opinions & stand. I can understand how some want to ignore me or others. One thought, I think it'd be helpful to post telling someone that they are going on 'ignore', that way they aren't posting expecting you to reply to something.
I'm back BTW. Yes, I agree with you, we can have passionate, sometimes heated, discussions without personal attacks and hard feelings. At least I hope so.
I would not call anyone deplorable. Well, maybe Hillary & her type... I had said 'depraved', it has quite a different meaning (from dictionary: corrupt, wicked, perverted). If you interpreted it to mean deplorable, I apologize & did not mean it that way. I don't mean to reopen that discussion, but just wanted to correct a misquote.I think the big thread about non-christians being deplorable
BTW, I didn't realize that Brent had put me on 'ignore'. That explains why he hadn't answered some questions I had put to him. Oh well. While I usually strongly disagree with him, I didn't 'ignore' him as he does make a point from time to time and is fairly respectful (both of which toexist never did).
I know I tick off some people here with my opinions & stand. I can understand how some want to ignore me or others. One thought, I think it'd be helpful to post telling someone that they are going on 'ignore', that way they aren't posting expecting you to reply to something.