"William Klee" <fnord2k@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:260720030203293786%fnord2k@yahoo.com...

In article <vQmUa.2040$G85.679@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net>,
JethroUK© <reply@the.board> wrote:

"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.07.26.03.32.49.366695@eac.org...

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 04:16:01 +0100, JethroUK© wrote:

It a badge! (that's not up for discussion)

Ah, I see. The judgment of your holiness is not up for debate.

- i want you to tell me why you
need one?

Mm... to stuff up your arrogant *****?

is that the best you can do? is a badge an arrogant word - ok what

about:

if you simply dont believe - why do feel the need for a title,

'atheist' -

(as opposed to just not believing) - i'm sure there must be a reason,

i'm

just tryna figure out what it is

I guess the concept of calling something or someone what they actually
are is a bit beyond you. Free clue: communication works much better
when people use commonly-accepted terms, with commonly-accepted
meanings. If I speak to a co-worker about my cats, it works much better
if I use the word "cats" with the meaning of "small, furry
semi-domesticated member of the species Felis Domesticus." If I say my
refrigerator just had briquets, no one will know what I'm talking
about. Much like you and your "badges."

Yes but they are all positive things - but you wouldn't specifically go out
of your way (wear a badge) to talk to a NON co-worker about NOT cats - even
if you didn't like your co-workers OR cats - you'd just refrain from
indulging either