Quote:

....................... OzPolitic Posts: 22878       Re: Gandalf...got another question for you. Reply #68 - Today at 9:14pm Quote Modify gandalf wrote Today at 4:28pm: Sprintcyclist wrote Today at 11:58am: Quote: ...........the bloodthirsty verses that abrogate the peaceful mecca verses. Yet here we have two separate Medina verses unambiguously commanding peace and tolerance - precisely during the time when Muhammad was in a position of power. ............ so there are blood thirsty verses that negate nice ones ? Course, when moh was in power he'ld say "everyone just be nice now." You should get your memes straight sprint - Soren was arguing the exact opposite. so you agree with me ? Back to top

What do you mean by "deletings" sprint?

Isn't it interesting your choice of slur against The Prophet:


Quote:

Course, when moh was in power he'ld [sic] say "everyone just be nice now."

as opposed to the more standard...

"Course when moh was in power he no longer needed to be nice, and was able to start ordering the slaughter of anyone he didn't like".

So as to your question Sprint - do I agree that Muhammad ordered his followers to treat previous enemies and other non-muslims with respect and coexist peacefully - even though he was in a position to do what he liked with them?

Umm yeah, as a matter of fact I do Sprint.

Is that what you are saying sprint? OOPS!

Somehow I'm guessing you'll now rethink that rather ill-considered slur  ;D

First of all he is only slurring a prophet if mo actually is one. To you obviously think he is, to him he is probably not, to me there is no proof mo even existed. Just a cool story decades later on written by someone else.

Why do you believe what you said you do when the Qu'ran shows the islamic god has a different perspective. Would not you and mo be going against the Qu'ran ?

What about you He Man, do you think that sprint was right to say Muhammad preached peace and tolerance after he was in power?

He Man wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 2:58pm:

Why do you believe what you said you do when the Qu'ran shows the islamic god has a different perspective.

You mean like the two Medinan verses calling for peace and tolerance I just quoted?  ;D

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 3:16pm:

What about you He Man, do you think that sprint was right to say Muhammad preached peace and tolerance after he was in power?

I don't even believe mohammed even existed as there is not one shred of evidence that he did, so asking me is a waste of time.

I was interested why you would think mohammed acted differently to the islamic gods perspective as written in the qu'ran book.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 3:18pm:

He Man wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 2:58pm: Why do you believe what you said you do when the Qu'ran shows the islamic god has a different perspective. You mean like the two Medinan verses calling for peace and tolerance I just quoted?  ;D

I am not quite sure why you are laughing. I see no reference to where they were from if you were in fact quoting something.

He Man wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 3:21pm:

I am not quite sure why you are laughing. I see no reference to where they were from if you were in fact quoting something.

Of course you don't see, because you are only interested in trolling and not understanding what is being discussed.

If you bothered to follow the actual discussion you would have seen the two Quranic (Medina) verses I quoted preaching the exact opposite to what you claim the Quran preaches. Hence my laughter.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 3:38pm:

He Man wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 3:21pm: I am not quite sure why you are laughing. I see no reference to where they were from if you were in fact quoting something. Of course you don't see, because you are only interested in trolling and not understanding what is being discussed. If you bothered to follow the actual discussion you would have seen the two Quranic (Medina) verses I quoted preaching the exact opposite to what you claim the Quran preaches. Hence my laughter.

I see perfectly clear.
So not referencing your quotes is funny. I'd say you are the troll not giving the references to the quotes and calling other people trolls that point out you are at present referencing and might I add quoting absolutely nothing.

I am not sprint why would you think I run around reading all your posts. I know what the Qu'ran says and made my comment.

Now if you want a civilized discussion reference your quotes or don't bother, but don't run around calling people trolls who pick you up on non referenced material.

If you don't understand the teaching in the qu'ran and its overall message of the muslim god in context I suggest you do a little more study on the subject rather than cherry picking two sentences out of it that I still do not know where they are from.

He Man wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 3:19pm:

I don't even believe mohammed even existed as there is not one shred of evidence that he did

I wonder what counts as "evidence" in your funny little mind?

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 3:44pm:

He Man wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 3:19pm: I don't even believe mohammed even existed as there is not one shred of evidence that he did I wonder what counts as "evidence" in your funny little mind?

Clearly not what is constituted as evidence in your funny little mind.

Care to share your evidence since we are now being diverted ?

No not diverted at all - I'm sticking to this issue - what does He Man consider as evidence. But He Man doesn't seem to want to answer.

Now I know you feel compelled at the moment to respond to me 5 seconds after I post, so I'll be eagerly awaiting an actual answer to the question. It will be interesting in view of the fact that there is not a single historian who wouldn't laugh the idea that there is "not a shred of evidence" that Muhammad existed out of court. But who knows, maybe He Man knows better than everyone else? Clearly He Man has a different understanding of what "evidence" means to every other human being on earth - so you can understand my interest. But will he explain??

What does He Man consider "evidence" to be?

If you want to stick to the conversation I'll accept your answer to me first instead of diverting to another question ?

I'll eagerly wait your response if you don't mind ?

"view of the fact that there is not a single historian who wouldn't laugh the idea that there is "not a shred of evidence" that Muhammad existed out of court"

What evidence are you talking about then ?

I have searched and there is nothing until 60 years after this man was supposed to have even existed then died.

Those so called historians must be hilarious. Where do these historians come from ? Mecca ? ;D

He Man wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 4:15pm:

I have searched and there is nothing until 60 years after this man was supposed to have even existed then died.

Right, so what you mean is there is no contemporary surviving evidence that he existed.

That is not the same as saying there is no evidence.

And by the way, the sources mentioning him begin from 2 and a half years after his death - not 60.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 4:54pm:

He Man wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 4:15pm: I have searched and there is nothing until 60 years after this man was supposed to have even existed then died. Right, so what you mean is there is no contemporary surviving evidence that he existed. That is not the same as saying there is no evidence. And by the way, the sources mentioning him begin from 2 and a half years after his death - not 60.

No I meant no evidence when I posted it. What is this so called evidence that mohammed was a prophet and muslims and islam and the qu'ran existed 2.5 years after his death ?

I listed those specifically as they are also needed to identify any man with that name as the one you revere as the perfect example of a muslim. We all know mohammed was a common name. Just before we go there.

He Man wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 4:57pm:

No I meant no evidence when I posted it. What is this so called evidence that mohammed was a prophet

whoa, wait there - why are you suddenly asking about whether he was a prophet? You originally disputed his existence per se. Nothing to do with whether or not he was a prophet.

So it seems to me that you would agree with a historical narrative that states the first muslims were led by a vicious warmonger named Muhammad who cynically exploited the Abrahamic teachings to create a new death cult for his own political ambitions - right?

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 5:05pm:

He Man wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 4:57pm: No I meant no evidence when I posted it. What is this so called evidence that mohammed was a prophet whoa, wait there - why are you suddenly about whether he was a prophet? You originally disputed his existence per se. Nothing to do with whether or not he was a prophet. So it seems to me that you would agree with a historical narrative that states the first muslims were led by a vicious warmonger named Muhammad who cynically exploited the Abrahamic teachings to create a new death cult for his own political ambitions - right?

Yeah lets drop the prophet part we both know he wasn't , so whats your evidence 2.5 years after he lived his whole life with no evidence of anyone seeing him ?

Still waiting - it can't be this hard surely. ;D

He Man wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 5:08pm:

Yeah lets drop the prophet part we both know he wasn't

Good idea, since I never mentioned it. I wonder why you suddenly brought it up? Just so you could make a strawman out of it?

Do you now concede that there is evidence Islam was founded by an historical figure called Muhammad? If so, whatever were you disputing in the first place?

By the way, the earliest mention of Muhammad was in a manuscript dated around 637 (ok, so 5 years after his death) detailing the arab conquest of Syria. But of course that would have been almost the first thing you found if you actually did search this topic like you claimed. Oh, and in case you didn't know, this is what we call "evidence".

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 5:41pm:

He Man wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 5:08pm: Yeah lets drop the prophet part we both know he wasn't Good idea, since I never mentioned it. I wonder why you suddenly brought it up? Just so you could make a strawman out of it? Do you now concede that there is evidence Islam was founded by an historical figure called Muhammad? If so, whatever were you disputing in the first place? By the way, the earliest mention of Muhammad was in a manuscript dated around 637 (ok, so 5 years after his death) detailing the arab conquest of Syria. But of course that would have been almost the first thing you found if you actually did search this topic like you claimed. Oh, and in case you didn't know, this is what we call "evidence".

Actually it is what we call an internet post nothing more anyone can type that. Where is the evidence or reference to it because as of this post there is still no evidence at all that mohammed remotely existed.

PS. So much for the 2.5 years after his death now we have stretch it another 2.5 years. I have a feeling this will be stretched even further by the time you are finished.

I found it hilarious you scraped up a non muslim source to try and make out it was evidence.

And guess what folks, mohammed was not mentioned in this manuscript at all.

" It is worthwhile cautioning that the condition of the text is fragmentary and many of the readings unclear or disputable."

Got anything else ?

Hmmm interesting - I'm even more curious than ever to know what He Man understands "evidence" to mean - since a reference from wikipedia with citation apparently doesn't count.


Quote:

There is a reference recording the Arab conquest of Syria, that mentions Muhammed. This much faded note is preserved on folio 1 of BL Add. 14,461, a codex containing the Gospel according to Matthew and the Gospel according to Mark. This note appears to have been penned soon after the battle of Gabitha (636 CE) at which the Arabs inflicted crushing defeat of the Byzantines. Wright was first to draw the attention to the fragment and suggested that "it seems to be a nearly contemporary notice"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad#Non-Muslim_sources

Is there literally anything that would count as historical evidence in your book He Man? I'm dying to know. How would a humble internet surfer lying on his couch obtain historical evidence that would be acceptable to you?

He Man wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 5:56pm:

And guess what folks, mohammed was not mentioned in this manuscript at all.

Quote:

many villages were ruined with killing by [the Arabs of] Mụhammad

He Man wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 5:56pm:

Got anything else ?

So what you are saying is not that there is "no evidence" - but rather there is no good evidence?

I'm dying to know what you define as "evidence". Please enlighten me He Man.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 6:04pm:

He Man wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 5:56pm: And guess what folks, mohammed was not mentioned in this manuscript at all. Quote: many villages were ruined with killing by [the Arabs of] Mụhammad He Man wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 5:56pm: Got anything else ? So what you are saying is not that there is "no evidence" - but rather there is no good evidence? I'm dying to know what you define as "evidence". Please enlighten me He Man.

You know darn well what definitive evidence is and you have nothing.

I'm dying to know when you can provide definitive evidence mohammed the first muslim even existed.

Your link proves nothing. How did you think I found out your silly evidence quote in the first place. You certainly wouldn't know.

As a muslim, well one with your own version of islam but lets call you a muslim. Aren't you embarrassed no one else saw the guy called mohammed head of islam ?

Not even another country ?

No one even documented a muslim ?

Aren't you curious as to why ?

Christians and Jesus Christ are documented in this manner as would be expected yet mohammed is not until 60 YEARS after his death.

Funny that.

Do you have anything of any REAL Substance other than silly responses ?

When you do post it here and I'll take a look until then obviously its an utter waste of my time playing silly billies pussy footing around with your nonsensical replies and lack of knowledge.

He Man, I can't post evidence that will satisfy you if I don't know what you consider to be satisfactory evidence now can I?

evidence or the latest version "definitive" evidence - either way, I need to know what you would consider acceptable. Can you do that for me big man?

Still nothing ::)

Keep searching surely it cannot be this hard...

He Man wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 6:12pm:

As a muslim, well one with your own version of islam but lets call you a muslim. Aren't you embarrassed no one else saw the guy called mohammed head of islam ? Not even another country ? No one even documented a muslim ? Aren't you curious as to why ? Christians and Jesus Christ are documented in this manner as would be expected yet mohammed is not until 60 YEARS after his death.

Oh dear me.

Firstly, Muhammad lived in an oral tradition, little was ever written down. But the oral accounts of him (passed down and later written as the ahadith) were immense. Secondly, the muslims never entered another "country" (as in non-arab lands) during his life time, so its not surprising no one from these places wrote about him.  And lastly, I don't believe there is a single contemporary source for Jesus either.

Hilarious, everyone including other countries all orally orated just for that time period. ROFL bloody hilarious.

Got anything at all seriously ?

I mean bloody hell if you have to go to those hysterical lengths to justify your so called prophets existence there is nothing anyone can say to you to help remove the blinkers.

Lets move on the the quran, it was around in mohammeds day, or so the legend has it.

Got anything other than 60 years after his so called death about the qu'ran ?


Surely there is something, anything at all ?

He Man wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 6:32pm:

Still nothing ::) Keep searching surely it cannot be this hard...

Can you at least explain how a reference to the Syrian Gospel codex is not evidence? Are you saying this fragment doesn't really exist or that the fragment is somehow not evidence?

What counts as acceptable "verifiable" evidence in your view? Its not a difficult question surely.

He Man wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 6:49pm:

Hilarious, everyone including other countries all orally orated just for that time period. ROFL bloody hilarious. Got anything at all seriously ?

Do you concede you were wrong about contemporary sources for Jesus?

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 6:52pm:

What counts as acceptable "verifiable" evidence in your view? Its not a difficult question surely.

Anything that validates his misunderstanding and prejudice.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 6:52pm:

He Man wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 6:32pm: Still nothing ::) Keep searching surely it cannot be this hard... Can you at least explain how a reference to the Syrian Gospel codex is not evidence? Are you saying this fragment doesn't really exist or that the fragment is somehow not evidence? What counts as acceptable "verifiable" evidence in your view? Its not a difficult question surely.

Where does it mention mohammed do tell the good readers here mate.

Not even a nice try just. Go read for yourself people how authentic this document mentions mohammed. Gawd. ::)

mothra wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 6:54pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 6:52pm: What counts as acceptable "verifiable" evidence in your view? Its not a difficult question surely. Anything that validates his misunderstanding and prejudice.

Get lost troll adults are talking.

Hilarious, everyone including other countries all orally orated just for that time period. ROFL bloody hilarious.

Got anything at all seriously ?

I mean bloody hell if you have to go to those hysterical lengths to justify your so called prophets existence there is nothing anyone can say to you to help remove the blinkers.

Lets move on the the quran, it was around in mohammeds day, or so the legend has it.

Got anything other than 60 years after his so called death about the qu'ran ?


Surely there is something, anything at all ?

He Man wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 6:56pm:

mothra wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 6:54pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 6:52pm: What counts as acceptable "verifiable" evidence in your view? Its not a difficult question surely. Anything that validates his misunderstanding and prejudice. Get lost troll adults are talking.

Well there's Gandalf ...

TROLL somewhere else dufus.

He Man wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 7:02pm:

TROLL somewhere else dufus.

Is that because you are already trolling here?

Go on. Prove your not. You've done a bad job of it so far but you can lift your game.

What constitutes proof for you He Man? It seems to be a difficult question for you so take your time.

He Man wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 6:56pm:

mothra wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 6:54pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 6:52pm: What counts as acceptable "verifiable" evidence in your view? Its not a difficult question surely. Anything that validates his misunderstanding and prejudice. Get lost troll adults are talking.

Now now matty, you've done so well to stay in character up until now. We don't want another cranial meltdown do we?

He Man do you concede you were wrong about Jesus - and that just like Muhammad, there are no contemporary written sources about him?

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 7:12pm:

He Man wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 6:56pm: mothra wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 6:54pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 6:52pm: What counts as acceptable "verifiable" evidence in your view? Its not a difficult question surely. Anything that validates his misunderstanding and prejudice. Get lost troll adults are talking. Now now matty, you've done so well to stay in character up until now. We don't want another cranial meltdown do we?

Grow up, just because you are embarrassed about islam doesn't mean you need to resort to childishness. Hmm maybe it does.

"In the case of Mohammed, Muslim literary sources for his life only begin around 750-800 CE (common era), some four to five generations after his death, and few Islamicists (specialists in the history and study of Islam) these days assume them to be straightforward historical accounts. For all that, we probably know more about Mohammed than we do about Jesus (let alone Moses or the Buddha), and we certainly have the potential to know a great deal more.

There is no doubt that Mohammed existed, occasional attempts to deny it notwithstanding. His neighbours in Byzantine Syria got to hear of him within two years of his death at the latest; a Greek text written during the Arab invasion of Syria between 632 and 634 mentions that "a false prophet has appeared among the Saracens" and dismisses him as an impostor on the ground that prophets do not come "with sword and chariot". It thus conveys the impression that he was actually leading the invasions."


https://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-europe_islam/mohammed_3866.jsp

mothra wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 7:05pm:

He Man wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 7:02pm: TROLL somewhere else dufus. Is that because you are already trolling here? Go on. Prove your not. You've done a bad job of it so far but you can lift your game. What constitutes proof for you He Man? It seems to be a difficult question for you so take your time.

Take a bex and have a lie down troll.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 7:13pm:

He Man do you concede you were wrong about Jesus - and that just like Muhammad, there are no contemporary written sources about him?

Why the need for contemporary bud. There are multiple sources that document the Christians and Jesus and non Christian. You know ones that were actually around in the same time period. Have a google.

Not 60 years after his magical existence like mohammed.


So back to where we were, you still have not one piece of evidence that mohammed actually existed before 60 years after his death. We agree on that obviously else we would have links flying everywhere on it.

I believed we moved onto the claim the qu'ran was supposed to have existed around mohammeds day as well. Surely this should be an easy one.

Got anything on the qu'ran since mohammed was so hard to find info about ?

He Man, stay focused - do you concede you were wrong to say that unlike Muhammad, there are contemporary accounts of Jesus?


He Man wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 7:18pm:

Grow up, just because you are embarrassed about islam doesn't mean you need to resort to childishness.

hmmm is childishness like telling people to "get lost" and calling them "dufus"?

I'll take that as a no that you still have nothing.... ::)

He Man wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 7:25pm:

So back to where we were, you still have not one piece of evidence that mohammed actually existed before 60 years after his death.

Oh thats right, you were about to explain to me how the Syrian Gospel fragment mentioning Muhammad (despite your original claim that it didn't mention Muhammad) doesn't count as a piece of evidence.

Take your time, I know your terribly busy telling people to get lost and calling them dufus.

The evidence says Muhammad existed

Some sceptical scholars claim that Muhammad did not exist and that Islam is a fabrication made up in later centuries. But Leiden University’s Petra Sijpesteijn has demonstrated from her work on Arabic papyrus manuscripts that their claim is not true.

What was the origin of Islam and what went on at the dawn of Islamic history? In the past, scholars who wanted to research the subject had to rely on the official Islamic version of events which was only written down about 200 years after Muhammad’s death. Only relatively recently has interest grown in more objective but less accessible sources such as coins, inscriptions and texts written on papyrus.

Petra Sijpesteijn, professor of Arabic language and culture at Leiden University, says that this last source is especially important. “The papyri are in fact the only contemporary source for the first 200 years of Islamic history.”

Pioneer
Papyrus manuscripts have been found in their thousands in the sand and at ancient rubbish tips all over the Middle East but especially in Egypt. Dr Sijpesteijn explains that they are often difficult to read because they are partially destroyed, badly written out or in dialect. “But if you can read them, they offer a unique glimpse of ordinary life at the dawn of Islam.”

The study of Arabic papyri is in its infancy. Only a fraction of the hundreds of thousands of available manuscripts have been studied. As far as the work done so far is concerned, the Muslim faithful can set their minds at ease: Dr Sijpesteijn says the texts largely confirm the official Islamic version of events.

Disorganised horde
Dr Sijpesteijn distances herself from the small group of polemical colleagues, known as the ‘revisionists’,  who assert that the Prophet Muhammad probably did not exist. They say the Arabic conquerors were actually a disorganised horde of Bedouins who gained control of half the known world more or less by chance. Islam is said to have been dreamt up 200 years later in Iraq.

“From the papyri, it appears that the Arab conquests were indeed carefully planned and organised and that the Arabs saw themselves as conquerors with a religious mission. They also appear to have held religious views and followed customs which contain important elements of the behaviour and beliefs of later Muslims.

Dr Sijpesteijn says for example that, shortly after Muhammad’s death, there is already mention of a pilgrimage (hajj) and a tax to collect money for the poor (zakat). She has also come across a papyrus text written around 725 which names both the prophet and Islam.

Even so, her discoveries form a potential threat to the image some modern Muslims have of their history. The papyri contradict the belief held by many of today’s Muslims that Muhammad delivered Islam as a sort of ready-made package. “It looks as though Islam in its first centuries developed a form gradually. There was an awful lot of discussion about precisely what it meant to be a Muslim.”


https://www.rnw.org/archive/evidence-says-muhammad-existed

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 7:29pm:

He Man wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 7:25pm: So back to where we were, you still have not one piece of evidence that mohammed actually existed before 60 years after his death. Oh thats right, you were about to explain to me how the Syrian Gospel fragment mentioning Muhammad (despite your original claim that it didn't mention Muhammad) doesn't count as a piece of evidence. Take your time, I know your terribly busy telling people to get lost and calling them dufus.

Still no proof mohammed existed except the trolls cut and pastes of useless crap.

Are you relying on the googlar troll for proof or should I still wait ?

Still not one piece of evidence even the Quran was around in mohammeds day ?

My goodness surely it cannot be this hard ::) .

Change the subject all you like encourage the mothra troll all you like at the end of the day you have still not provided : -

- Not one shred of evidence that mohammed existed before 60 years after his well so called death.

- Not one shred of evidence the Qu'ran existed around mohammeds time as claimed.

Why is this so hard for muslims to understand ?

I'll tell you why because islam threatens every single one of them if they question it let alone prove it wrong.

No. You've been proven wrong.

You should just accept it and move onto the next hysterical bit of propaganda from "Mulimwatch" or whatever the hell small-minded, one-eyed, intellectually challenged bigot site you frequent to dredge up these ridiculous 'validations' of your Islamophobia.

At least keep it fresh.

This topic is done now.

He Man wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 7:40pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 7:29pm: He Man wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 7:25pm: So back to where we were, you still have not one piece of evidence that mohammed actually existed before 60 years after his death. Oh thats right, you were about to explain to me how the Syrian Gospel fragment mentioning Muhammad (despite your original claim that it didn't mention Muhammad) doesn't count as a piece of evidence. Take your time, I know your terribly busy telling people to get lost and calling them dufus. Still no proof mohammed existed except the trolls cut and pastes of useless crap. Are you relying on the googlar troll for proof or should I still wait ? Still not one piece of evidence even the Quran was around in mohammeds day ? My goodness surely it cannot be this hard ::) . Change the subject all you like encourage the mothra troll all you like at the end of the day you have still not provided : - - Not one shred of evidence that mohammed existed before 60 years after his well so called death. - Not one shred of evidence the Qu'ran existed around mohammeds time as claimed. Why is this so hard for muslims to understand ? I'll tell you why because islam threatens every single one of them if they question it let alone prove it wrong.

No He Man, I asked you to explain to me why its not evidence. Why is that so hard?

I'll keep an eye out if you can post any evidence of real substance when you don't need to rely on the mindless mothra trolls cut and pastes of nonsense.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 7:49pm:

He Man wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 7:40pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 7:29pm: He Man wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 7:25pm: So back to where we were, you still have not one piece of evidence that mohammed actually existed before 60 years after his death. Oh thats right, you were about to explain to me how the Syrian Gospel fragment mentioning Muhammad (despite your original claim that it didn't mention Muhammad) doesn't count as a piece of evidence. Take your time, I know your terribly busy telling people to get lost and calling them dufus. Still no proof mohammed existed except the trolls cut and pastes of useless crap. Are you relying on the googlar troll for proof or should I still wait ? Still not one piece of evidence even the Quran was around in mohammeds day ? My goodness surely it cannot be this hard ::) . Change the subject all you like encourage the mothra troll all you like at the end of the day you have still not provided : - - Not one shred of evidence that mohammed existed before 60 years after his well so called death. - Not one shred of evidence the Qu'ran existed around mohammeds time as claimed. Why is this so hard for muslims to understand ? I'll tell you why because islam threatens every single one of them if they question it let alone prove it wrong. No He Man, I asked you to explain to me why its not evidence. Why is that so hard?

And I told you the document never reference mohammed at all. Not only that the document is not concrete as even a document.

You were clutching at straws and was the first thing you found in wikipedia from a non muslim source.

Now when you have something concrete let me know. Stop playing silly games.

If you don't know man up and admit it.

Or even show me the existence of the qu'ran.

To date you still have nothing except some wishy washy document that illudes to some dude who had an army and was in a religion. That means SQUAT.

Hell it could have been anyone for crying out loud.

Please give us something more. Tell us all mohammed isn't just a fairy tale.

Tell us the quran was around in mohammeds day and was not just an idealogy penned to a book 60 years after mohammeds death . Please anything at all.

I'll keep an eye out if you come up with anything at all...

He Man I gave you a perfectly legitimate piece of evidence - the Syrian fragment. It is an historical account written by a contemporary mentioning the arab leader Muhammad in the year 637. It is evidence of the existence of Muhammad less than 60 after his death - an exceedingly simple fact that is obviously too inconvenient for you. I have invited you to explain why its not evidence, you refuse to do so, which frankly just makes you look foolish. If it was so easy to dismiss as evidence you would be able to do so, and I'm sure you wouldn't hold back in doing so. Your refusal to do so just shows embarassingly clearly that you do accept it as evidence, but cannot bear to say so.

He Man wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 7:56pm:

And I told you the document never reference mohammed at all

You mean when it mentions the name "Muhammad" its not referencing Muhammad?

Fascinating logic I'm sure, care to share it?

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 8:00pm:

He Man I gave you a perfectly legitimate piece of evidence - the Syrian fragment. It is an historical account written by a contemporary mentioning the arab leader Muhammad in the year 637. It is evidence of the existence of Muhammad less than 60 after his death - an exceedingly simple fact that is obviously too inconvenient for you. I have invited you to explain why its not evidence, you refuse to do so, which frankly just makes you look foolish. If it was so easy to dismiss as evidence you would be able to do so, and I'm sure you wouldn't hold back in doing so. Your refusal to do so just shows embarassingly clearly that you do accept it as evidence, but cannot bear to say so.

Stop embarrassing yourself. I already responded to that. It never mentioned mohammed at all. It aint rocket science my answer. Thats the 3rd time I have told you now.

Got any more evidence like REAL evidence like anyone at all who wrote "man this badassed muslim man called mohammed with his army attacked us and raped our girls"


Anything will do, not ridiculous stretches of the imagination like you put forward.

Deal with it for goodness sakes.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 8:01pm:

He Man wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 7:56pm: And I told you the document never reference mohammed at all You mean when it mentions the name "Muhammad" its not referencing Muhammad? Fascinating logic I'm sure, care to share it?

You might like to read it before resorting to Lying about it saying mohammed WHEN IT DOES NOT SAY mohammed ... ::)

Why resort to lies ?

One of the earliest non-Muslim sources to possibly mention the prophet of Islam is a document known as the Doctrina Jacobi which was written by a Christian between 634 and 640. The document mentions the Saracens coming with an army and the prophet leading them. The writer was stopped by an old man well versed in Scripture and he inquired, “what can you tell me about the prophet who has appeared with the Saracens? He replied, groaning deeply: ‘He is false, for the prophets do not come armed with a sword.’ (p.21) This unnamed prophet mentioned in the Doctrina was travelling with his army. Muhammad had died already. Moreover the full document speaks with reference to the anointed one, the Christ who was to come.”

“… there is not a single account of any kind dating from around the time the Doctrina Jacobi was written that affirms the canonical Islamic story of Muhammad and Islam’s origins.” (p.22)

The conquest of Jerusalem in 637 is mentioned by Sophronius, the patriarch of Jerusalem, who turned the city over to Umar, the conquering leader, but nothing is said about a holy book, or Muhammad, only that they were Saracens who were “godless.”

The first reference to the term Muslim comes in 690 by a Coptic Christian bishop, John of Nikiou. He wrote: “And now many of the Egyptians who had been false Christians denied the holy orthodox faith and lifegiving baptism, and embraced the religion of the Muslims, the enemies of God, and accepted the detestable doctrine of the beast, that is, Muhammad, and they erred together with those idolaters, and took arms in their hands and fought against the Christians.”


;D ;D ;D


Got anything else ?

Any more evidence mohammed existed less than 60 years after his death ?

Anything at all ?

If not lets move on to the Qu'ran then, anything at all ?

I won't hold my breath ::)

Lol my source is not the doctrina jokobi which was written in palestine in Greek. My source is the Syrian fragment and mentions Muhammad by name, as quoted before. Two completely separate sources.

But hey, thanks for bringing it up - mentioning aan armed prophet who they say is false, leading the saracens in conquest around the same time as Muhammad sounds like even more evidence for the existence of historical Muhammad to me.

Yeah after his death, did he rise from the dead too ;D

Still nothing ::)

Unlike historical evidence of saints and prophets from other religions around the world, there are no historical evidence of a ‘prophet’ named Muhammad, a Quran or Islam to have existed anywhere near the Middle Eastern region during his assumed lifetime (570-632 AD). The earliest historical mention, and very short and brief, only appear over 100 years after his death.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRZtUHUifas

Says it all really.

If you could be bothered watching of course peeps.

He Man wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 8:59pm:

If you could be bothered watching of course peeps.

It's been disproved.

Catch up.

He Man wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 8:52pm:

Yeah after his death, did he rise from the dead too ;D Still nothing ::)

Indeed after his death - and less than 60 years after his death. Thats what you were mocking me about remember? No mention of Muhammad until 60 years after his death, thats what you claimed - shall I quote it back for you? You also repeatedly claimed my source made no mention of Muhammad by name - stupidly thinking it was a completely separate source. This was despite already having quoted the source mentioning Muhammad.

Shall we tally up the number of idiotic mistakes you have made in this thread alone?

Hmmm you said thanks for bringing that up yet the prophet was marching in an army after his death ;D

Still no evidence mohammed even existed 60 years after his death. ::)

mothra wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 9:01pm:

Catch up.

Go back to sleep troll.

He Man wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 9:08pm:

mothra wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 9:01pm: Catch up. Go back to sleep troll.

You're breathtakingly unaware of how a big a fool you are making of yourself, aren''t you?

He Man wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 9:06pm:

Still no evidence mohammed even existed 60 years after his death

Good point - its unlikely Muhammad existed 60 years after his death.

There is nontheless evidence of his existence less than 60 years after his death - as pointed out - firstly, the Syrian fragment mentioning Muhammad by name, then the Doctrina Jacobi, mentioning a "false prophet" leading the Saracens. Your continued efforts to deny this evidence makes you even more of a parody than you were before (which amazingly, is actually possible).

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 9:04pm:

He Man wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 8:52pm: Yeah after his death, did he rise from the dead too ;D Still nothing ::) Indeed after his death - and less than 60 years after his death. Thats what you were mocking me about remember? No mention of Muhammad until 60 years after his death, thats what you claimed - shall I quote it back for you? You also repeatedly claimed my source made no mention of Muhammad by name - stupidly thinking it was a completely separate source. This was despite already having quoted the source mentioning Muhammad. Shall we tally up the number of idiotic mistakes you have made in this thread alone?

Here is the summation of your proof mohammed existed.

" It is worthwhile cautioning that the condition of the text is fragmentary and many of the readings unclear or disputable."

Yah mate you have evidence.

Even if it was true where is all the evidence while he was alive and so called conquering ;D

Pull ease try harder.

By your analogy you reckon you have evidence mohammed the head of islam existed 5 years after his death. ::)

Then for another 60 years not a peep. PULL EASE

Pull the other one.

Got anything else ?

Anything at all ? NOPE didn't think so. ::)

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 9:12pm:

He Man wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 9:06pm: Still no evidence mohammed even existed 60 years after his death Good point - its unlikely Muhammad existed 60 years after his death. There is nontheless evidence of his existence less than 60 years after his death - as pointed out - firstly, the Syrian fragment mentioning Muhammad by name, then the Doctrina Jacobi, mentioning a "false prophet" leading the Saracens. Your continued efforts to deny this evidence makes you even more of a parody than you were before (which amazingly, is actually possible).

You are having problems understanding that doesn't prove Mohamed the prophet of islam existed at all.

Deal with it gawd. ::)

Geez man you can't be this, well shall we say .....

Lets pause for a score check:

number of He Man's idiotic claims that have been exposed so far:

1. There is no known evidence of Muhammad existing that is less than 60 years after his death
2. The Syrian fragment contains no mention of Muhammad by name
3. The Syrian fragment is actually the Doctrina Jacobi
4. The Doctrina Jacobi, mentioning a false prophet leading the saracens around the time of Muhammad, somehow isn't evidence of Muhammad's existence
5. unlike Muhammad, there is contemporary evidence supporting the existence of Jesus

Anything else?

He Man wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 9:14pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 9:12pm: He Man wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 9:06pm: Still no evidence mohammed even existed 60 years after his death Good point - its unlikely Muhammad existed 60 years after his death. There is nontheless evidence of his existence less than 60 years after his death - as pointed out - firstly, the Syrian fragment mentioning Muhammad by name, then the Doctrina Jacobi, mentioning a "false prophet" leading the Saracens. Your continued efforts to deny this evidence makes you even more of a parody than you were before (which amazingly, is actually possible). You are having problems understanding that doesn't prove Mohamed the prophet of islam existed at all. Deal with it gawd. ::)

;D ;D

So we're twisting from "No mention of Muhammad by name" - to "well it doesn't prove Muhammad existed"

Keep squirming bro, its hilarious

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 9:20pm:

He Man wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 9:14pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 9:12pm: He Man wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 9:06pm: Still no evidence mohammed even existed 60 years after his death Good point - its unlikely Muhammad existed 60 years after his death. There is nontheless evidence of his existence less than 60 years after his death - as pointed out - firstly, the Syrian fragment mentioning Muhammad by name, then the Doctrina Jacobi, mentioning a "false prophet" leading the Saracens. Your continued efforts to deny this evidence makes you even more of a parody than you were before (which amazingly, is actually possible). You are having problems understanding that doesn't prove Mohamed the prophet of islam existed at all. Deal with it gawd. ::) ;D ;D So we're twisting from "No mention of Muhammad by name" - to "well it doesn't prove Muhammad existed" Keep squirming bro, its hilarious

Squirming, ;D ;D ;D you are a hoot.

You still have not proven mohammed existed with anything at all yet. You do understand that don't you it aint hard. ;D

All you have done is squirmed and tried to change the subject. Then grasped at some fragmentary manuscript. Hilarious.

Got anything else ? Seriously ?

Even about the Quran that would be a hoot bet ya don't go there.

Anything on the Qu'ran ;D

Thought not.

Still nothing NADA, ZIP. ::)

He Man wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 9:24pm:

You still have not proven mohammed existed with anything at all yet. You do understand that don't you it aint hard.

Do you understand there is a difference between evidence and proof? You can't use the two words interchangeably.


He Man wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 9:24pm:

Still nothing NADA, ZIP.

Except of course the source that mentions Muhammad by name - that you thought was the Doctrina Jacobi. You haven't forgotton already have you?

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 9:47pm:

He Man wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 9:24pm: You still have not proven mohammed existed with anything at all yet. You do understand that don't you it aint hard. Do you understand there is a difference between evidence and proof? You can't use the two words interchangeably. He Man wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 9:24pm: Still nothing NADA, ZIP. Except of course the source that mentions Muhammad by name - that you thought was the Doctrina Jacobi. You haven't forgotton already have you?

Muhammad the head of Islam Ooo does it where ? ;D

NADA ZIP ;D

I think this is matty finally giving up. Only took about 6 hours.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 9:54pm:

I think this is matty finally giving up. Only took about 6 hours.

Good. Now he can crash the board.

I must admit, seeing someone so brazenly and dismissively brush over such embarrassingly bad mistakes - and push on so enthusiastically undeterred, is impressive. Awe inspiring even. 

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 9:54pm:

I think this is matty finally giving up. Only took about 6 hours.

No worries karnal. ;)

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 10:02pm:

I must admit, seeing someone so brazenly and dismissively brush over such embarrassingly bad mistakes - and push on so enthusiastically undeterred, is impressive. Awe inspiring even.

Nah I used to sit here and watch Freediver tug your chain and watch you squirm and thought well its raining outside lets put some basic facts in front of a muslim, that should be a hoot and I did.

Freediver enjoys it more clearly I usually don't engage muslims as this is always the result. It always gets nasty when facts get in the way of their beliefs.

Oh well, back to it.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 9:19pm:

Lets pause for a score check: number of He Man's idiotic claims that have been exposed so far: 1. There is no known evidence of Muhammad existing that is less than 60 years after his death Nope 2. The Syrian fragment contains no mention of Muhammad by name Nope no prophet Mohammed from Islam 3. The Syrian fragment is actually the Doctrina Jacobi No dramas there I'll give you 1 point but you lost it in the next breath when you said thanks then realized mohammed would have been dead when leading those armies ;D 4. The Doctrina Jacobi, mentioning a false prophet leading the saracens around the time of Muhammad, somehow isn't evidence of Muhammad's existence The dates had him dead at the Time my point 5. unlike Muhammad, there is contemporary evidence supporting the existence of Jesus We werent discussing Jesus. Anything else?

6. The 2 medina verses were still not quoted

7. Diverted to anything but the medina verses

8. Has no proof the prophet of islam mohammed actually existed less than 60 years after his pretend death except some broken manuscript that mentions a guy called mohammed. Gee I wonder how many mohammeds there are in the middle east. ::)

9. Can provide no information on the existence of the quran in mohammeds day.

Me = 8
You 1 - 1 = 0

Are we there yet ?

He Man wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 11:13pm:

Has no proof the prophet of islam mohammed actually existed less than 60 years after his pretend death except some broken manuscript that mentions a guy called mohammed.

Still confused about the difference between proof and evidence I see.

There is no proof, no one ever said there was.

broken manuscript that mentions a guy called mohammad = evidence for the existence of Muhammad. I'm sorry thats too embarrassing for you.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 3:15am:

He Man wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 11:13pm: Has no proof the prophet of islam mohammed actually existed less than 60 years after his pretend death except some broken manuscript that mentions a guy called mohammed. Still confused about the difference between proof and evidence I see. There is no proof, no one ever said there was. broken manuscript that mentions a guy called mohammad = evidence for the existence of Muhammad. I'm sorry thats too embarrassing for you.

I said there was no proof mohammed the so called prophet of islam existed less than 60 years after his death. The embarrassing thing is all you produced was a broken manuscript that referred to some guy with the same name and said it was him.

Gee I wonder how many mohammeds in the middle east there are.

It must be embarrassing to have no proof this twat mohammed you babble on about day and night even exists. All the time and efart you put into babbling on about him and bam you can't even prove he existed until 60 years after his pretend death. ::)

I am amazed that you dedicate your whole life to this myth really, what a huge waste. Not only that you freely admit you have your own version of islam. Why bother.

Get a grip on reality ... Pull the other one it plays Jingle Bells son. ;D

He Man wrote on Oct 31^st, 2015 at 7:25pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 31st, 2015 at 7:13pm: He Man do you concede you were wrong about Jesus - and that just like Muhammad, there are no contemporary written sources about him? Why the need for contemporary bud. There are multiple sources that document the Christians and Jesus and non Christian. You know ones that were actually around in the same time period. Have a google. Not 60 years after his magical existence like mohammed. So back to where we were, you still have not one piece of evidence that mohammed actually existed before 60 years after his death. We agree on that obviously else we would have links flying everywhere on it. I believed we moved onto the claim the qu'ran was supposed to have existed around mohammeds day as well. Surely this should be an easy one. Got anything on the qu'ran since mohammed was so hard to find info about ?

Utter rubbish. Look up some of those "contemporary" texts regarding Jesus...

The "Jesus" story was all recorded (and exaggerated) after his Crucifixion.. In FACT - the same litmus test for authenticity can be applied to both figures academically (which is entirely different to spiritually...) - generally, scholars accept that both figures existed historically - now the stuff that has been written up, exaggerated and just made up about them - well that has become the object of "faith"...

In short, you're on a slippery slope argument there...

He Man wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 4:02am:

I said there was no proof mohammed the so called prophet of islam existed less than 60 years after his death.

uh no, you said no "shred of evidence". Big difference.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 8:51am:

He Man wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 4:02am: I said there was no proof mohammed the so called prophet of islam existed less than 60 years after his death. uh no, you said no "shred of evidence". Big difference.

Every ancient document that mentions a mohammed in the past is proof that it was mohammed that made up islam and he actually existed. Not one document however mentions a muslim, islam or the qu'ran until 60 years after fictitious mohammeds pretend death. ;D ;D ;D

I wonder how many mohammeds there were in the middle east.

He Man wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 6:17pm:

Every ancient document that mentions a mohammed in the past is proof that it was mohammed that made up islam and he actually existed.

Evidence, He Man, it is evidence.

"proofs" don't exist in history.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 7:14pm:

He Man wrote on Nov 1st, 2015 at 6:17pm: Every ancient document that mentions a mohammed in the past is proof that it was mohammed that made up islam and he actually existed. Evidence, He Man, it is evidence. "proofs" don't exist in history.

Your evidence has nothing to do with mohammed the fictional character of islam.

;)

Please show us some evidence Mohammed the fictional character of the islam story actually existed.

Got anything ? Anything at all ?

A document mentioning the Arabs of Muhammad conquering Syria at the time we know they were conquering Syria is evidence for the existence of the historical Muhammad, founder of Islam.

As is a document mentioning a "false prophet" leading the Saracens (common term for muslim) in conquest - at almost the same time we know Muhammad was expanding his empire.

This is obvious to anyone with half a brain.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 1^st, 2015 at 7:36pm:

A document mentioning the Arabs of Muhammad conquering Syria at the time we know they were conquering Syria is evidence for the existence of the historical Muhammad, founder of Islam. As is a document mentioning a "false prophet" leading the Saracens (common term for muslim) in conquest - at almost the same time we know Muhammad was expanding his empire. This is obvious to anyone with half a brain.

I am sure it is , that would be most muslims.

Got anything else other than a stretch of the imagination ?

Anything at all ?

You still haven't explained what would suffice as evidence He Man.

A time machine perhaps?
authentic 7th century video footage?

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2015 at 10:36am:

You still haven't explained what would suffice as evidence He Man. A time machine perhaps? authentic 7th century video footage?

So to date you cannot produce one piece of evidence that proved mohammed the so called prophet of islam actually ever existed.

Nothing from muslims as clearly they must have all been illiterate at the time or he never existed.

No mention of a muslim anywhere from anyone. Probably because he never existed.

Your still having trouble proving anything, I'll take anything from you.

Anything from when mohammed was actually alive, we know that wont happen, anything after his pretend death before the story was mad up 60 years later.

The word mohammed on a piece of fragmented dodgy pottery 5 years after his death ;D don't cut it.

Gee I wonder how many mohammeds there were. ::)

Please let all the muslims know you have something more ?

Anything at all ?


They might like to know how you also know the Qu'ran was around at the time of mohammed please anything at all anything ?

;D ;D ;D

There is no historical evidence Islams prophet mohammed or the Quran existed at all prior to the caliph ordering all the suras and hadiths written then the quran decades after he was supposed to have died.

These people are really deluded. They are like conspiracy theorists they cannot accept reason nor live in reality which makes them dangerous. Unteachable and ignorant.

Good tactic Matty - if no one else agrees with you, get another Matty to back you up.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 9:08am:

Good tactic Matty - if no one else agrees with you, get another Matty to back you up.

LIAR..

No need to resort to BLATANT LYING because your prophet is all baloney.

In typical Muslim fashion you get upset. What will it be next bannings ?

;D seem to have hit a nerve there.

Yeas, I struck a nerve didn't sorry old boy. ;D

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 9:08am:

Good tactic Matty - if no one else agrees with you, get another Matty to back you up.

Don't mind Karnal ;) he gets a little sensitive when imaginary mohammed is on the ropes. ;D

Gandy enjoys his socks backing him up.

I'll take that as a compliment.

If only I could be half as insightful and articulate as Karnal.

*waves to karnal* ::)

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 2:53pm:

I'll take that as a compliment. If only I could be half as insightful and articulate as Karnal.

You are.

And he gets most things arse-about (being keen on the miam miam stuff, our PB).


Some compliment.

Soren wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 5:24pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 2:53pm: I'll take that as a compliment. If only I could be half as insightful and articulate as Karnal. You are. And he gets most things arse-about (being keen on the miam miam stuff, our PB). Some compliment.

Karnal is probably the most intelligent person on this forum and one of the funniest.

I think Gandalf should take it as high praise.

mothra wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 5:27pm:

Soren wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 5:24pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 2:53pm: I'll take that as a compliment. If only I could be half as insightful and articulate as Karnal. You are. And he gets most things arse-about (being keen on the miam miam stuff, our PB). Some compliment. Karnal is probably the most intelligent person on this forum and one of the funniest. I think Gandalf should take it as high praise.

That coming from you - I rest my case.

mothra wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 5:27pm:

Soren wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 5:24pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 2:53pm: I'll take that as a compliment. If only I could be half as insightful and articulate as Karnal. You are. And he gets most things arse-about (being keen on the miam miam stuff, our PB). Some compliment. Karnal is probably the most intelligent person on this forum and one of the funniest. I think Gandalf should take it as high praise.

Says it all don't it ;D

Ah the old yahoo troll in fine form making a clown of herself.