ilovefuzz.com

JonnyAngle wrote:Waffle House > IHOP

I came here for this joke, thank you.

Please keep posting DoS! Your mix of serious commentary and humour is doing wonderful things for my morning.

Ha I genuinely thought the pancakes place had something to do with this until I googled IHOP Kansas City

Ya'll think he'll reply, ignore or delete? Place your bets now, ladies and gentlemen!

My bet will be no reply

He did actually reply. A bullshit answer, sure, but a reply non-the-less.

That's the thing, he could just say "yeah, we did that stuff before and now we don't" and I'd say nice one for owning up, now go back to make your boring overdrives.

I don't get why he's making it try to seem like he's not associated with them. Even if it's true, isn't that bad for business? I get taking a non political or religious stance, lord knows I wish more builders would do that, but at this point it's like cutting your own head off. You're slapping your base in the face to try to branch out to the non believers. Which to me proves he's finally hit the tipping point of money>God. LOL.

Sigh. What a dumb ass.

UglyCasanova wrote:He did actually reply. A bullshit answer, sure, but a reply non-the-less.

I don't think it's a bullshit answer as much as you're getting sidelined into pedantry about whether money (ostensibly made by the company) donated to these dodgy pancake eaters on behalf of the guy that runs the company counts as "being supported by the company." I think you'll find a pretty even split of people willing to argue on both sides of that issue.

MechaGodzilla wrote:That's the thing, he could just say "yeah, we did that stuff before and now we don't" and I'd say nice one for owning up, now go back to make your boring overdrives.

1000000000%

Also, while he's at it, if he can denounce IHOP that'd be nice. Not nice enough to make me buy that ugly bland shit he releases, but nice nonetheless.

D.o.S. wrote:

UglyCasanova wrote:He did actually reply. A bullshit answer, sure, but a reply non-the-less.

I don't think it's a bullshit answer as much as you're getting sidelined into pedantry about whether money (ostensibly made by the company) donated to these dodgy pancake eaters on behalf of the guy that runs the company counts as "being supported by the company." I think you'll find a pretty even split of people willing to argue on both sides of that issue.

Are you one of those people? Because that's a pretty thin argument. Donating to an organization as a whole and, I quote, being "directly involved in funding several mission works" are two very different things.

D.o.S. wrote:Also what is a "conservative fundamentalist"?

Are there liberal fundamentalists?

Yes, but not referenced in contemporary/popular discourse.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?ter ... in_frame=0

It's a word divorced from its original meaning, kinda like 'radicalism.' They're essentially the same thing, but have become associated with polemics as a shorthand.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?ter ... in_frame=0

'Radical' from 'radix' (radish), meaning 'root.' The etymological root of radicalism is...'root.'

Someone peed in two bowls of cheerios today, I guess.

@UC obviously I'm one of those people in the sense that I will argue about anything from any position, but that's not really what I mean -- I think the way you've posed your question will basically just pit a bunch of people who are predisposed to favoring JHS arguing about the separation and the people who are predisposed to dislike JHS will say that it's a semantics thing and nothing will actually move forward.