Well, I consider it hypocrisy, when you present a movement as one of the most important ones of our time, devout yourself to rallying the masses behind you, because of this importance, enter the public stage to promote this view, and then decide to abandon this movement all together to give old hairy men head for money.

It's a question of if the whole notion of evangelizing atheism is a delusion, that served as sole purpose of giving a few insignificant lives a cheap sense of meaning, rather than a real and concrete sincerity to save mankind.

jcgadfly wrote:

I guess we chould just hail you as the anti-fanboy you are...no, wait, you're obsessing about something that no one else really gives a shit about.

So being critical of the hypocrisy of a Pope, of prominent Christian leaders, mean that atheist who do so are obsessing over them? 

You're the one that claimed that Ted Haggard is valid topic of discussion because of his supposed hypocrisy, why doesn't Kelly fall under the same standard?

Are you going to deny that she was just a nobody here? Not someone of prominence? Not a significant contributor to this site? Not a founding member? I mean apparently the RRS cared so much about her that she was the one chosen to appear on national television. I mean apparently the RRS cares so much about her to have post and posters routinely banned and edited at the sheer mention of her name after her departure.

Mattshizzle has an entire "official" thread devoted to explaining why he's gone, but not Kelly or Rook? I'm sure this was not because Shizzle was seen as more important than them, but rather discussion about them (particularly Kelly) are deemed as more riskier. 

Quote:

Maybe I should call you super fanboy.

Uhm..yeah...ok. A fanboy attempts shied their beloveds from criticism, and refuses to call a spade a spade.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The disgust you have oozes forth in this underlined text.

Wow, that's some serous reading into the text. So from "to give old hairy men head for money." you deem that I have some oozing contempt for prostitutes? 

Silly rabbit tricks are for kids.

Now, if I said something like that "whore of a bitch who fucked and spread herpes", then your claim might have sounded some what valid. 

I used to live in the Tenderloin, an area of San Franciso dominated by tranny prostitutes  and I used to sit outside and talk to them all the time, bring them food, and kid with them that my dick was bigger than theirs. I often find myself far more comfortable and at home with those living in that barrel, than with those living with my own skin. You don't find contempt at all here, but rather an endearing affection. And it's why i find something in Jesus' relation to those in that underbelly rather than to the Jewish Temple, or religious leaders to be relatable. He preferred a table with them rather than with royalty, and so would I.

I could have used "prostitute" rather than someone who gives "old hairy men head for money" but it just sounds boring.

I'm criticizing her for fleeing the cause she promoted as so important. I'm calling her out as hypocrite for it. 

Since I saw that she was signed on last night as a member, I wouldn't consider that fleeing.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Since I saw that she was signed on last night as a member, I wouldn't consider that fleeing.

So let's see, so following your logic, I'm signed on, does that mean that I'm fighting the good cause for atheism?

Wow, so she does have time to sign on, but no time to write a post here and there? To tell us that she hasn't abandon the fight contrary to what the circumstance have us believe? She hasn't posted anything in several months, nor even acknowledged her departure. 

It's not rocket science folks, she left, she's gone. She might lurk in here and there to see what people are saying about her, or it may just as well be Sapient or the mods logging on to her account to check and clear out her inbox, or pauljohn could be lying all together about claiming he saw her signed in. Or perhaps he was deluded by false hopes of her returning, that he saw a Kelly in the building when she wasn't there. 

The rational conclusion is that she's abandon the fight, she's not looking to fight another day, but has given up the fight all together. She would rather give head for dollars than be a part of this movement.  I guess that's how "significant" she saw this enterprise to be, less significant than sucking hairy balls. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PJTS fueled your obsession....

jcgadfly wrote:

PJTS fueled your obsession....

i think you're obsessed with saying i'm obsessed. 

*Trying to say this in a matter-of-fact, non-rude way.*

Kelly looks like she's on meth or something. She looks like she's lost 20 or 30 pounds. And she sounds very high in those porn videos. People tend to go more toward the 'extremes' (stealing, hooking, etc.), as well, when they are on drugs. Not trying to classify what she is doing as wrong. But it's a fact that hooking/porn isn't socially acceptable, and is something that people tend to avoid more when their inhibitions aren't.. inhibited.

I'm not making fun of her. I think it's very sad.

Pulseczar wrote:

*Trying to say this in a matter-of-fact, non-rude way.*

Kelly looks like she's on meth or something. She looks like she's lost 20 or 30 pounds. And she sounds very high in those porn videos. People tend to go more toward the 'extremes' (stealing, hooking, etc.), as well, when they are on drugs. Not trying to classify what she is doing as wrong. But it's a fact that hooking/porn isn't socially acceptable, and is something that people tend to avoid more when their inhibitions aren't.. inhibited.

I'm not making fun of her. I think it's very sad.

It's legal in nirvada so there there is nothing wrong with it. not socially aceptable doesn't mean anything, to eat dogs isn't socially aceptable but what is wrong with eating dogs?  I realise you are not saying it is wrong but even so. Drugs are a personal chioce so i find no reason to be sad unless it is forced but I highly doubt that.

Tapey wrote:

Pulseczar wrote:

*Trying to say this in a matter-of-fact, non-rude way.*

Kelly looks like she's on meth or something. She looks like she's lost 20 or 30 pounds. And she sounds very high in those porn videos. People tend to go more toward the 'extremes' (stealing, hooking, etc.), as well, when they are on drugs. Not trying to classify what she is doing as wrong. But it's a fact that hooking/porn isn't socially acceptable, and is something that people tend to avoid more when their inhibitions aren't.. inhibited.

I'm not making fun of her. I think it's very sad.

It's legal in nirvada so there there is nothing wrong with it. not socially aceptable doesn't mean anything, to eat dogs isn't socially aceptable but what is wrong with eating dogs?  I realise you are not saying it is wrong but even so. Drugs are a personal chioce so i find no reason to be sad unless it is forced but I highly doubt that.

The only thing you said relevant to what I said was the last sentence. So, to that:

You don't think there's anything sad about someone messing themselves up with drugs? Or do you not think someone is capable of messing themselves up with drugs? Do you not think it's sad when someone makes a bad choice that hurts themselves? -- as long as they were able to make the choice themselves? If Betty made the mistake of changing lanes in a car while there was a truck next to her, causing her to wreck and kill herself, that's not a sad event? Of course, an uncaring person wouldn't feel sad over the suffering of others. So that's a possibility.

 Sheesh.  Is everybody happy now?

RRS doesn't have a position on the sex business.  We never have.  We're not in the business of supporting political agendas.  

RRS doesn't have a position or requirement regarding the occupation of either core or contributing members, past or present.  We never have.

RRS doesn't care about any of this.  We've never claimed to.

Nobody at RRS has ever claimed to be a role model for anybody.  Everybody here is just living their lives.  We've never claimed otherwise.  

RRS is truly sorry for you if you disapprove of any of the above.

I'm going to let this thread continue because some posters apparently can't live without talking about Kelly.  Have fun.  Knock yourself out, or up, or whatever it is you're doing while you're thinking about Kelly.  Just know that we will be deleting duplicate topics, drive by's, and anything else that violates our terms of service.  I'm moving this thread to trollville because nobody fucking cares except the three or four people who are posting.  I'm not locking it, though, so all you folks who think this is important, have a blast.

 

 Sheesh.  Is everybody happy now?

RRS doesn't have a position on the sex business.  We never have.  We're not in the business of supporting political agendas.  

RRS doesn't have a position or requirement regarding the occupation of either core or contributing members, past or present.  We never have.

RRS doesn't care about any of this.  We've never claimed to.

Nobody at RRS has ever claimed to be a role model for anybody.  Everybody here is just living their lives.  We've never claimed otherwise.  

RRS is truly sorry for you if you disapprove of any of the above.

I'm going to let this thread continue because some posters apparently can't live without talking about Kelly.  Have fun.  Knock yourself out, or up, or whatever it is you're doing while you're thinking about Kelly.  Just know that we will be deleting duplicate topics, drive by's, and anything else that violates our terms of service.  I'm moving this thread to trollville because nobody fucking cares except the three or four people who are posting.  I'm not locking it, though, so all you folks who think this is important, have a blast.

 

Um you said it isn't socially acceptable so I felt the need to show you that it really doesn't matter what is socially acceptable or not

No I don't know her I don't even know if she is on drugs so why would I be sad? If she messes up her life yes it is sad but drugs aren't an automatic life ruiner although thay can be and often are. I don't know if they have messed up her life so I see no reason to be sad. It is quite simple. Yes if she is on heavy drugs it is a very real possiblity but you cannot lump this into 2 boxs and say that is how it is. If you have the money and your job doesn't drug test and you have no problem being on them where is the harm? It is your own body and your own choice

yes and yes I doubt many people want any of that but we are talking about a specific case here. The point still is if you have a job witch doesn't drug test that gives you money for it Im not seeing those things (important that it doesn't interfere wih job performance). Prostitution, legal prostitution doesn't pay as badly as the illegal variety does. and as far as I know there are no drug tests.  so the point stands.

btw RRS is a private organisation so they can adopt whatever funny rules they want

She would rather give head for dollars than be a part of this movement.   

RRS doesn't have a position on the sex business.  We never have.  We're not in the business of supporting political agendas.  

RRS doesn't have a position or requirement regarding the occupation of either core or contributing members, past or present.  We never have.

RRS doesn't care about any of this.  We've never claimed to.

Nobody at RRS has ever claimed to be a role model for anybody.  Everybody here is just living their lives.  We've never claimed otherwise.  RRS is truly sorry for you if you disapprove of any of the above.