Makaze

----------
The difference between "I like your style" and "I am surprised that you are not in a relationship" is that the first one is an expression of personal taste. If you were to compare them, it would be more correct to say, "Your style is very popular."
----------
Yes, there is a difference. No, it isn't relevant. Take another look at the paragraph where you found the example. Your correction doesn't undermine my point that a single compliment doesn't leave the door open at all. Dawdling on these technical issues is wasting both our times.


----------
Ah, perhaps I am being too logical? I would prefer rejection because I lose less sleep over it. I move past things far faster when I know how they are intended. Other people are not like this?
----------
Logic would mean that you'd prefer a small chance (evasive ambiguity) over no chance at all (black-on-white rejection).


----------
Like I said, there are far better ways to let someone know that you are not interested, but it is better to let them know if you are decisive about it. Dancing around the issue will drag out the pain until they figure it out for themselves.
----------
And I gave you perfectly valid reasons why it isn't better. You haven't responded to them; you just regurgitated a paragraph from your previous post. Are you just debating for the sake of debating? Because we really are going around in circles on this one.

I can't get on every joke. That would make me dull.

What I did yesterday was talked to friends, played a game, then signed off to play Catherine, AC Brotherhood and hunt for trophies.

Now, I've woken up, fed the cats, and now on here.

I'm not going to do the "quote every paragraph" system anymore. Experience taught me that we may end up going around in circles if we keep this up, if we aren't already. Instead I'm going to summarize my point of view and try to address your replies to the best of my abilities.

Yes, saying "I'm surprised that you don't have a boyfriend/girlfriend yet" can be used in a variety of contexts. In the vast majority of cases (not saying "all cases" because I don't want to get shot down by an irrelevant exception) though, it's used as a compliment. It can be used honestly or dishonestly just like any compliment but that was never the point (but from my experience people will usually weasel around a compliment if they'd not agree with it instead of being downright dishonest).

The phrase is translatable to: "You are attractive enough to have a boyfriend/girlfriend". It is not necessarily translatable to "You are attractive enough to to be my boyfriend/girlfriend", but it can be. It avoids conveying personal interest, but doesn't deny it.
Is this a case of leaving the door open? No more than saying something like "I like your style" is. Again, it's a compliment like any other, and one compliment won't net you the prize.

Would it be better to say "I am surprised that you are not a relationship. Not that I am interested, but I can see why others would be"? No, of course it wouldn't. It doesn't make your compliment seem less hollow (a half-assed nimby-answer would do quite the contrary to me at least), and it isn't any less painful. They may lose sleep over ambiguity as well as rejection, so that argument doesn't make sense.
I don't see how leaving someone wondering is a risk either. You reduce the chance of heartbreak, have less chance to lose your friend completely, and have him interested in case romantic feelings start budding on your part. Risk? Hardly.
I'm not saying that rejecting someone is wrong, mind. Indeed, after a confession of love it's probably the most sensible thing to do. But if they don't show their true feelings clearly, then I see no reason why you should.

Oh, you gave Marushi the dare to post pics?





Do it again.

Aww. I should have used that in my previous post. Oh well.

Mugging. Your doing it wro.......right?

You don't seem like the mugging type.

Unless you have played FF games?

So it seems.

I don't use it much. Sue me.

Oh yeah? Only problem now is I have no idea what version of Mac I have.

Thanks. I think I'll give it a shot.

Just a question. For that Audacity program, Which one are you supposed to download? the Beta one, or the one below it?

Well then, you are indirectly responsible for showing me. Thanks.

Thanks, but DT already showed me how to do it.

I reread it. Thanks for trying to be more clear in your statements.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


THERE IS POSITIVELY NO POINT IN TALKING TO YOU!


I'm done banging my head against the wall. ttyl.

It is not true. Your checkbox questions did not ask me my position, it asked me my personal beliefs on three or four points of relative importance to my position, not even allowing for the presence of another option, phrased so that no matter which option I checked, I did not fully believe what I was checking and so felt that I had to explain why I checked that box. You still made assumptions, even while having a box checked. For example, you gave me two options:


----------
Do you believe that a court should have the right (would be right or righteous) to torture or kill someone while there is room for doubt? [ ]

Do you believe that a court should have the right (would be right or righteous) to condemn someone of wrongdoing while there is room for doubt as to what "wrongdoing" is? [ ]
----------
First, you asked the same question twice, one with more detail than the other, giving no other option, phrasing both questions so that if I checked it, I would sound intolerant, no matter what I truly believe.

NOTE: I AM NOT DONE EXPLAINING MY STATEMENT! READ WHAT I AM TYPING! DO NOT FORM A SUPPOSITION OF WHAT YOU THINK I BELIEVE BASED ON THE ABOVE STATEMENT ALONE!

Second, I do not agree with either question, nor do I disagree. In many ways, it would depend on the situation. But you don't allow for situations, you wish me to make a generalization based on no example whatsoever, and when I try and explain the reasoning behind my statement, you don't even read it, on the grounds that you now know what my position is, based on the twisted definition you wrangled out of me with a cleverly coined phrase that will demonize me no matter what answer I check.

NOTE: I AM NOT DONE EXPLAINING MY STATEMENT! READ WHAT I AM TYPING! DO NOT FORM A SUPPOSITION OF WHAT YOU THINK I BELIEVE BASED ON THE ABOVE STATEMENTS ALONE!

Third, you base my position in regards to personal religion and belief on this trick question you ask me, even when the two things you are trying to link together DON'T MATCH UP IN THE SLIGHTEST. Yes, I think that the court of law does indeed have the right to make judgements based on evidence as to the guilt or innocence of an accused, in regards to the law that they are attempting to enforce, with power given to them by the people. What this has to do with God having the right to make judgements based on his omniscient veiw of everything as to the guilt of his creation in regards to the law that he wrote, with the power he gave himself, I have no idea.

NOTE: I AM NOT DONE EXPLAINING MY STATEMENT! READ WHAT I AM TYPING! DO NOT FORM A SUPPOSITION OF WHAT YOU THINK I BELIEVE BASED ON THE ABOVE STATEMENTS ALONE!

If you really look at the two of those statements, actually try and understand what it is I am saying, you would see that they are seperate. A court of law recieves its power from the people who set them up as a judicial court. God, if he is real, gets his power by being the most powerful thing in the universe. A court of law bases its judgements on the law written by the people. God, if he is real, bases his judgements on his own law, that he wrote, and told to us. A court of law examines all available evidence before making a verdict. God, if he is real, sees everything, and so he knows everything, and so he does not make wrong judgements, because he has the most evidence that can possibly be found: He saw what happened. The two are completely seperate.

I AM NOW DONE WITH REFUTING YOUR CLAIM THAT YOUR CHECKBOXES ARE A SUITABLE METHOD OF KNOWING WHAT I BELIEVE. ON TO THE NEXT ISSUE.

As for your statement that you counter nearly every piece of text I write individually, You are wrong there. I have countered almost every statement you wrote, whereas you have not even read all of mine. If you do not read my entire post, you cannot possibly address every statement individually, and instead have based most of your argument against a false supposition of what a christian must believe, as can be seen by your checkbox question above.

NOTE: I AM NOT DONE EXPLAINING MY STATEMENT! READ WHAT I AM TYPING! DO NOT FORM A SUPPOSITION OF WHAT YOU THINK I BELIEVE BASED ON THE ABOVE STATEMENT ALONE!

You think that a christian is judgemental and intolerant, and so you think that I also am that way. So you ask me the following:
----------
Do you believe that a court should have the right (would be right or righteous) to torture or kill someone while there is room for doubt? [ ]
----------
You think that I will check "yes," because I am intolerant, and so will blindly agree with whatever a court of law decides to do to any accused individual, regardless of wether or not there is sufficient evidence, regardless of wether or not the accused is innocent, because a court of law is a court of law, and so they must be right.

NOTE: I AM NOT DONE EXPLAINING MY STATEMENT! READ WHAT I AM TYPING! DO NOT FORM A SUPPOSITION OF WHAT YOU THINK I BELIEVE BASED ON THE ABOVE STATEMENT ALONE!

I do not think this way! I know perfectly well that a court of law can make mistakes. You forget, that Jesus was convicted of practically everything "bad" a person can possibly do, because the court was presented with false witnesses and false evidence. It is perfectly possible for a court of law to screw up bad. God, however, cannot. If God is real, if God exists, than he sees everything, and so will never be presented with false evidence. He won't mess up, because HE KNOWS WHAT HAPPENED.

NOTE: I AM NOT DONE EXPLAINING MY STATEMENT! READ WHAT I AM TYPING! DO NOT FORM A SUPPOSITION OF WHAT YOU THINK I BELIEVE BASED ON THE ABOVE STATEMENT ALONE!

But I have indeed read your entire arguments before I started arguing against them, in an attempt to truly understand your position so I could beter argue against it, which is how I write posts like this one: http://www.kh-vids.net/converse.php?u=49422&u2=39072&page=2 the one I posted at 01-07-2012 07:12 PM. In that post, I make no statements claiming to know what you believe without backiing it up with a direct quote from you, in several cases, at least three or four quotes proving that it is what you said. In fact, I ended up countering nearly every sentence you wrote and spiraled into a whole new tree of arguments THAT YOU DIDN'T EVEN READ.

NOTE: I AM NOT DONE EXPLAINING MY STATEMENT! READ WHAT I AM TYPING! DO NOT FORM A SUPPOSITION OF WHAT YOU THINK I BELIEVE BASED ON THE ABOVE STATEMENT ALONE!

You however, have made several statements regarding to what I believe, and not only do you give no quote from me to back up these statements, YOU COMPLETELY DISREGARD STATEMENTS THAT I HAD MADE IN THE VERY ARGUMENT YOU WERE ARGUING AGAINST. Don't believe me? Here, I'll prove it.

I said:
----------
I am not so easily swayed by conjecture and hypothosis, I require facts and sensibiity before I accept that I am sitting at the right table. You say that I merely believe the way I do becauseI have never thought about anything else? Wrong. For years, I didn't believe in God. I had grown up a "christian", I had heard all the stories and I knew the rhetoric, just like you, but I did not accept it as a religion until I had sufficient evidence to believe in it. Until there is evidence, it is just an antiquated story, the faith of my parents, silly little songs sung by sunday school teachers. I believe not because I simply was told to, I believe because I found satisfactory proof that it was true. If you can sufficiently taint this evidence, instead of just the conjecture that it might be tainted, well, I might just reconsider. Good luck trying, though. My faith is very well rooted, and I usually know what I'm talking about, so it will take a whole lot more than half-proved rumors to shake my beliefs.
----------
In your very next post, you said:
----------
Your previous position was this:

Christiany simply is true / is 100% likely to be true.
Buddhism must be 0% likely to be true.
Islam must be 0% likely to be true.
Hinduism must be 0% likely to be true.
Satanism must be 0% likely to be true.
Atheism must be 0% likely to be true.
----------
You not only have NO QUOTES FROM ME that I actually believed this way, but you COMPLETELY DISREGARD my prior statement that I DID NOT ALWAYS BELIEVE THIS WAY. So you base your supposition of what you think I believe on your prior perception of what a christian must be, and not what I actually believe at all. This happened because you did not read my argument before you started arguing against me.

NOTE: I AM NOT DONE EXPLAINING MY STATEMENT! READ WHAT I AM TYPING! DO NOT FORM A SUPPOSITION OF WHAT YOU THINK I BELIEVE BASED ON THE ABOVE STATEMENT ALONE!

You say that every time I try to prove a false premise, I draw on another supposition. Wrong. You have not even ATTEMPTED to argue with me directly, you have not even READ what I am saying. You are arguing ONLY on suppositions, your entire premise for arguing is false.

I AM NOW DONE WITH REFUTING YOUR CLAIM THAT YOU COUNTER MY ARGUMENTS AND I ONLY BASE MINE ON SUPPOSITIONS. ON TO THE NEXT ISSUE.


Alright, at another time, I will write out a post explaining to you exactly why I believe that A. The world exists, B. The world was created, C. The Bible is true, and D. God exists. I will present you with all the evidence I have found, for you to examine at your own lesiure. (Inconsequentially, why do you go from A to B, and then from 1 to C, and then from 2 to D, instead of using all numbers or all letters?)

NOTE: I AM NOT DONE EXPLAINING MY STATEMENT! READ WHAT I AM TYPING! DO NOT FORM A SUPPOSITION OF WHAT YOU THINK I BELIEVE BASED ON THE ABOVE STATEMENT ALONE!

Anyway, you have not countered ANY of my premises, you have argued against completely seperate issues instead. You say there is no support, but you only think so because you have not read the support I wrote. You do not counter premise 1, you counter premise hypothetical, the un-numbered premise I never even claimed to believe. Want an example? Got it.

You state:
----------
You have admitted this:

"There is no way to prove that God is right."

Yet you still state this:

"God is right either way."

This is an obvious contradiction. In claiming the second statement, you make an 'is' statement based on evidence, and so you claim to know that he is right, while you have just admitted that you cannot know. Can you know or can you not? Please decide.
----------
What you did there was you read half of my arguments, in which I practically had to bludgeon you over the head by repeating over and over again that "I CANNOT KNOW WITHOUT A DOUBT THAT GOD IS ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY 100% TRUE!" After saying so over and over again, you finally noticed it and took it, but then you placed it with your preconcieved notion that I think that "God is right either way," something that I have not only NEVER ONCE SAID IN THIS DEBATE, not even back when it was in the ToD thread, but something that I have REPEATEDLY tried to tell you that I don't claim.

NOTE: I AM NOT DONE EXPLAINING MY STATEMENT! READ WHAT I AM TYPING! DO NOT FORM A SUPPOSITION OF WHAT YOU THINK I BELIEVE BASED ON THE ABOVE STATEMENT ALONE!

You actually say that I STATED it, which I never did. I asked you to show me where I stated it, and instead of backing your claim that I stated it, you instead shift the responsibilty on me to prove that I haven't. Alright then, I accept. In a court of law, if a person accuses a newpaper or news station of lying about them in print or on air, this is called "suing for liable." When a person sues for liable, it is their responsibility to prove that the statement in question is a lie, and not the responsibilty of the paper or station to prove that the statement in question is true. So, I have reveiwed every post I wrote, including the ones in the ToD thread. Never once have I said that God is right either way, nor have I even suggested it. If you really want me to, I am perfectly able to copy and paste every sentence I said and send it to you in a huge snowball of debate for you to reveiw, to prove that I never stated such a thing.

NOTE: I AM NOT DONE EXPLAINING MY STATEMENT! READ WHAT I AM TYPING! DO NOT FORM A SUPPOSITION OF WHAT YOU THINK I BELIEVE BASED ON THE ABOVE STATEMENT ALONE!

You have based your entire argument not on my position, which is that I, while knowing that the existance of God is not provable, still believe it to be the closest thing to a provable truth that I have ever found, but instead you have based your argument on a statement I have never said, a premise I have never taken, and the two main reasons such a mistake is possible are these: A. You did not read my arguments, and so had no idea what my position even was. B. You have based your opinions of what I believe not on what I actually claim to believe, but your preconcieved notion of what a christian must believe.

I AM NOW DONE WITH REFUTING FURTHER YOUR CLAIM THAT YOU COUNTER MY ARGUMENTS AND I ONLY BASE MINE ON SUPPOSITIONS. ON TO THE NEXT ISSUE.

Finally, you say that based on your previous debates with me, you have learned that the most practical approach is to counter premise 1 and ignore the rest. In which of our previous debates did you learn this? In every one of our previous arguments except one, I have stepped down before any real arguing was done, because I prefer to choose my battles, and until now I didn't find a debate worth arguing. The one time that I held out until you stepped down was the solution to punishment thread, and the only reason I went that long was because somebody told me that there was no point in arguing with you, because, as they said, "Seriously, its like banging your head against a wall. I do agree with you. But its not worth sacrificing a moment of your life to accomplish nothing." And I, being stubborn, decided to hang on until the bitter end, because this person advised me not to. Besides, I had heard from all sorts of people that you were the end-all as far as debating goes, and I wanted to see for myself what you could do. I must say, I'm far from impressed.

NOTE: I AM NOT DONE EXPLAINING MY STATEMENT! READ WHAT I AM TYPING! DO NOT FORM A SUPPOSITION OF WHAT YOU THINK I BELIEVE BASED ON THE ABOVE STATEMENT ALONE!

You say that you are arguing the core of my position, but I have now proved that you do not even know what my position is. I will state it to you, simply and clearly, as straightforward as I possibly can. You can argue against it as much as you want, but now you actually will be arguing against an actual purpose instead of a hypothetical position based on preconcieved notions of what a christian must believe. However, before I do, I am curious: What do you actually think my position is?

Alright. I will not argue with you anymore, because if you do not read an entire post, you have no idea what it is I'm saying, and so we argue back and forth, you claiming to know what I believe, me saying that you are wrong in what you think I believe, and you completely ignoring that I say you are wrong in what you say I believe and stating again that I believe it. You see what you think to be a false premise, so you don't bother to read the rest of the post. If you had read the rest of my post, you would see that I explain everything I state. But you do not. You skim through my argument and read only the checkbox statements, and completely ignore the reasoning behind what I say on the false premise that it is a false premise.

IF YOU DO NOT READ MY ARGUMENT, THEN ANY STATEMENT YOU MAKE AGAINST THE ARGUMENT YOU DID NOT READ IS BASED ON THE FALSE PREMISE OF WHAT YOU THINK I BELIEVE.

For at least half of this debate, you have read half of what I wrote, taken these half-understood statements, and mixed them up with what you already think a christian must think, and based the premise of your argument against that tangled knot of what you believe my position to be. Until you actually read every one of my posts, which, I doubt you will do, you will not have any idea what I'm saying, what I believe, and what my position is. Until you can understand what I am saying, what I believe, and what my position is, it is illogical, unreasonable, impractical, ineffficient, a complete waste of my time, stressful, and the exact opposite of pragmatic for me to continue fighting. Until it is logical, reasonable, practical, efficient, a good use of my time, and pragmatic for me to continue, I will stop.

It's up too you now, Makaze. If you want to keep debating me, at least read what it is I'm saying before you begin arguing against it in total ignorance. I think you'll find that your own arguments will be a lot more effective in the debate if they actually argue against my position.

Makaze, before I go any further, before I spend any more time on this debate, I have one check-box question of my own:

Did you read my entire post? [ ]

Did you not read my entire post? [ ]

Until you answer this question, I will not argue any more on this subject.

Alright, when and where have I stated that God is right either way? Please, show me where I said this. Quote me, please.

I stated that if a god exists, Again, I say IF a god exists, and he not only comes down from his heavenly home and lets us see him, but also tells us outright that he is real and shows us miraculaous signs to the effect, then he has the right to judge when we choose to disbelieve. I did not say that God is right either way, I said that if he is right, and he not only comes down from heaven and lets us see him, but also tells us outright that he is real and shows us miraculous signs to the effect, then he has the right to judge when we don't believe him. I did not say that Zeus is right either way, I said that if he is right, and comes down from Mount Olympus and he not only lets us see him, but also tells us that he is real and shows us miraculous signs to the effect, then he has the right to judge when we don't believe him. I did not say that Ra (the Egyptian God of the Sun) is right either way, I said that if he is right, and he not only comes down from the sky and lets us see him in his human form, but also tells us that he is real and shows us miraculous signs to the effect, then he has the right to judge when he don't believe him. Let me say this again, and hopefully you will believe me this time:

I DID NOT SAY THAT I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT GOD IS ONE-HUNDRED PERCENT POSITIVELY ABSOLUTELY WITHOUT A DOUBT RIGHT, I SAY THAT IT IS THE CLOSEST THING TO TRUTH THAT I HAVE EVER FOUND, WITH THE MOST EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT. I DO NOT PRETEND TO KNOW EVERYTHING THERE IS TO KNOW ABOUT THIS RELIGION, BUT THERE IS ENOUGH PROOF TO BE FAIRLY CERTAIN THAT IT IS TRUE.

I'll say it again, I do not know for a fact that God is right, but there is more evidence to support that he is than there is to support that he isn't. I choose to believe the evidence I see, that does not mean that there is no doubt.

JUST BECAUSE I CHOOSE TO BELIEVE SOMETHING DOES NOT MEAN THAT I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT IT IS REAL.

You said yourself that
----------
What you choose to believe or not to believe is your perception of the world.
----------
I can choose to believe that God is true, and this belief is my perception of the world. Now you say that if I believe something, it must mean that I claim to know it to be true. THAT IS NOT THE CASE. I can believe something without knowing it to be fact. It's called "faith," believing even with the absence of things unseen.

I DO NOT KNOW FOR FACT THAT GOD IS REAL, NOR HAVE I STATED THAT I KNOW HE IS. BUT I STILL BELIEVE IT. THIS IS A MATTER OF FAITH, NOT KNOWLEDGE.

For you to state that I can't believe in something without claiming that I know it to be true only shows that you did not read the definition of belief that I posted, the one from your dictionary. Believing something can apply to what is self-evident, like mathematics, but it can also apply to something that cannot be proved, such as God or Zeus. Now to check the boxes.


----------
Do you believe that a court should have the right (would be right or righteous) to torture or kill someone while there is room for doubt? [ ]
----------

----------
Do you believe that a court should have the right (would be right or righteous) to condemn someone of wrongdoing while there is room for doubt as to what "wrongdoing" is? [X]
----------
There you go. Please, allow me to explain my reasoning beyond this belief. I'll even do it in bold, italicized, underlined, green letters, so you might actually read it.

IF THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS DISCERNABLE WRONGDOING, THEN A COURT STILL SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO JUDGE WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE IN SOCIETY AND WHAT WILL BE A DESTRUCTIVE THING TO ALLOW.

If a man commits a murder, and he is placed on trial, and it is proved that he did in fact murder the victim, the judge must decide wether or not the murderer is to be allowed to enter back into civiization. If you turned a murderer loose on the grounds that "It is impossible to discern wether or not murder is actually morally wrong or not," you would be indirectly responsible for any further murders that took place by his hand. By my logic, I haven't even attempted to compare a god to a judge. They are completely seperate. Please, explain how you can compare a judge to a god.

Now I will address your example. Your example is that I, being on one side of a one-way mirror, am trying to convince the man on the other side that I exist. You say that I cannot step into his room, and let him see me, and touch me. In this case, there is no point in time when I can judge this person for not believing in my existance. Now lets apply this example to Christianity. You say that God is the same as me, proving that you indeed do not know the rhetoric, as you claim. To illustrate this, I am assuming for the purpose of the argument that God is real, and that to see him is sufficient proof of his existance. I understood how it is allowed when you did it, I hope you can understand how it is that I am allowed now.

God, on one side of the mirror, tries to explain to mankind that he exists, but they have no proof, and so he actually does step into the room. He created it, why should he not also be able to defy it? If we assume for the argument that God is real, we can also assume for the sake of the argument that his word is real too. According to the Bible, God came down to earth in the Form of Jesus, so he stepped through the mirror. Not only did he come down from heaven and let us see him, he told us outright that he is real and performed miraculous signs to the effect. So we saw him, we heard his claims, we saw the signs, and we disbelieved him. He has the right to judge. I, however, do not. Let me make this clear:

CLAIMING THAT GOD WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO JUDGE IF HE WAS REAL DOES NOT MEAN THAT I ALSO THINK I HAVE THE RIGHT TO JUDGE. I DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO JUDGE ANYBODY, WHICH IS WHY I DON'T JUDGE PEOPLE.

Okay, next box:


----------
Are you right to judge me for doubting your existence? [ ]

In light of this, would any other being be right to judge me for the same? [X]
----------
Here, you claim that God and man are equal. Wrong. If we can assume, for the sake of argument, that God is real, we can also assume that his word is true. According to his word, he not only created us, but he also created the entire universe. Can you create an entire universe? Yeah, if this is all an illusion, a figment of imagination. But for the sake of the argument, we are assuming that God is real. So he created the universe, and you are not imagining. Bear in mind, I am not saying that you believe the world to be an illusion and I am not saying that God is real, I am saying that if you did, and if God was real, you would be wrong. If God is real, and his word is true and he came down to earth and not only let us see him, but told us outright that he was God and gave us miracuous signs to the effect, he would have the right to judge when we don't believe.

If you read my post, you will know where I stand and what I believe. If you only read the checkboxes, then you still have no idea what I believe, and will probably continue making statements that display your ignorance. Just sayin'.