Eegore wrote on 09/18/26 at 19:16:56:


And, once AGAIN,  NOT

    It was a QUESTION.

 Keep playing your game !
 

Amish, Latter-day Saints, Hutterites, Catholics, Lutherans, Buddhism, Shinto,  ETC, ETC, ETC, ...,  ...,  ..., , All have their belief/s. They all have, 'RULES" to follow in their religion. They all tell people their religion is the best.

YET NONE OF THEM, throw people off buildings, stone them, Cut Off Clits, etc. Because they didn't follow a, 'RULE', in their religion. Or do not believe in their religion.

How about Raping 250,000 young White British girls, who were subjected to systematic rape, gang rape, trafficking, torture, pregnancy, forced Islamic conversion, and lifelong trauma at the hands of predominantly Pakistani Muslim grooming gangs. Which, apparently, Is perfectly OK.

      (Yea  Virginia,
not all Muslims did that)

  Yet !
Please tell us all,
WHEN did any  "Amish, Latter-day Saints, Hutterites, Catholics, Lutherans, etc, etc, etc, ..., ..., ..., Even people that believe in, not believing in anything", did the same ?

            And Again Virginia !
Stop with the CRUSADES,
      Or the Avenging Angels.

Funny you mentioned the Crusades,when the Europeans invaded the middle east and killed thousands of Muslims, along with the raping and pillaging...


 MnSpring won't establish a timeframe so it muddies the waters in my opinion.  Kind of like how debating just about anything will eventually result, in my opinion, talking about Nazis.  This is an opinion.

 Unless one establishes that the current state of extremism applies in a timeframe of 1 year back from today for example, people will bring up the Crusades in my opinion.  

 It is my opinion, for anyone incapable of understanding what an opinion is, that modern extremism can be discussed without reverting to discussing historical, ended, events like the Crusades.  This is an opinion.

What do they say? "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it."

 
 It's not ignoring history to set a timeline of pertinent discussion.  My opinion is that it's not ignoring history to set a timeline of pertinent discussion.

 If I am discussing current white supremacy groups and there is debate as to what US State currently has the most, we do not need to discuss World War 2 in my opinion.  Nobody needs to pull the Nazi card.  This is an opinion.

 It is my opinion that MnSpring is referencing current religious extremism.  We don't need to play amateur hour blame games using historical actions from hundreds of years ago to debate the accuracy of current religious extremism.  This is an opinion.

 In my opinion, we can debate the frequency of Muslim Brotherhood violence, today, without referencing the Crusades.  The Crusades have nothing to do with humans enacting violence on other humans today.  This is an opinion.

You refer to a timeline, then immediately mention things that have nothing to do with a timeline.

 I disagree.  My opinion is that I disagree.

 
In sentence one I state: "It's not ignoring history to set a timeline of pertinent discussion." - this directly relates to a timeline.  The word "timeline" is specifically used.  Sentence one addresses a timeline.


In sentence two I state: "If I am discussing current white supremacy groups and there is debate as to what US State currently has the most, we do not need to discuss World War 2 in my opinion."

The word "current" establishes a shortened timeline, this is compared to a longer timeline extending to WW2, in my opinion.  This sentence clearly, in my opinion, addresses a timeline from today, back to 1939.  Sentence two addresses a timeline.


 In sentence three I state: "Nobody needs to pull the Nazi card"

 The word "Nazi is specifically chosen as it fits specifically in the timeline of current to 1939, and is the direct word utilized to exemplify that modern white supremacy can be discussed without using specifically Nazi of WW2.  Sentence three addresses a timeline.  This is an opinion.


 In sentence five I state: " It is my opinion that MnSpring is referencing current religious extremism"  

 The word "current" is used to establish MnSpring's intent to discuss a timeline of recent activities, with the specific exemption of a timeline that includes the Crusades.  Sentence five addresses a timeline.

 
 In sentence Six I state: "We don't need to play amateur hour blame games using historical actions from hundreds of years ago to debate the accuracy of current religious extremism."

 The words "hundreds" combined with the words "years" and "ago" when combined clearly provide an example of a timeline that exceeds the perceived, but unestablished timeline that MnSpring is intending to address in my opinion.  Sentence Six addresses a timeline.


 In sentence seven I state: "In my opinion, we can debate the frequency of Muslim Brotherhood violence, today, without referencing the Crusades."

 This sentence also clearly establishes discussion of a very clear timeline.  "Today" going back to 1095, again to establish that there is no need for such discussion.  Sentence seven addresses a timeline.  

 
 In my opinion it is inaccurate to claim I brought up a timeline then did not mention things that are specific to a timeline.  My post is about the lack of a requirement to discuss the Crusades in order to discuss modern religious extremism.



"You're just trying to avoid an argument that you cannot win because it will never end."

 There is no argument in my opinion.  You just lack the ability to have a non-adversarial response to anything that is not in absolute agreement to everything you post.

I have 'OBSERVED' that, Many times.

Which I call, "OBSERVED REALITY".

 I've noticed.  My opinion is that I have noticed.

 My opinion is Observed Reality is a poor qualifier for data.  Anyone that has not Observed Needles behavior would say any data presented about his argumentative and childish behavior is incorrect because they have never Observed it and as such is not part of their Reality.  This is an opinion.