Jump to content
GurjantGnostic

Confused face is GuestSing

Recommended Posts

Some of the confused faces was me but I didn't know it was that serious.

Just saying my reactions was just to "play along" with the joke.

Doesn't seem like a joke anymore though.

 

But I will be your NEW confused face from now on :)

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is too funny.  A person claiming to be part of the army should have more discipline.  This guy cracks in a split second.  Whoever is doing it, keep it up.:rofl

  • Like 1
  • Confused 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joseph, you are quite weird and have serious issues.

These untruthful, self-righteous and pathetic claims are just not normal. Why have you not posted any evidence? The reason is that there is none to present. You wouldn't be a very good lawyer or judge.

The fact that you made a thread about how posters disagree with some of your posts by using emoticons is not only laughable but shows everyone the size and frailty of your ego and self-esteem.

You have already proven yourself to be a hypocrite on these boards and now you will be shown to be a liar.

Firstly, only some of your posts have been marked confused from my account because of disagreement, incoherent arguments and strange ramblings. One poster has already admitted joining in as a joke and a bit of fun but you have kept quiet. A quick search shows that some of your posts have been left with no emoticon so why are you claiming otherwise? Why are you exaggerating?

Secondly, what 'personal information' has been posted? Another quick search on these boards shows that some my posts to you refer to your first name. Is that it? This 'personal information' that is mentioned so much is just your first name? Not sure about anyone else here but personal information usually includes full name, address and contact numbers etc. Please show evidence of these three posted from my account.

Did you know that if you search for your name, you see the following:

On 1/18/2018 at 2:15 AM, GurjantGnostic said:

My name is Joseph William Dana Mulvihill.

You posted that. It came from your account, not mine, as you have joyfully cried.

Look what else was found:

On 1/13/2018 at 7:10 AM, GurjantGnostic said:

I'm from Reno Nevada.

You posted that. It came from your account, not mine, as you have joyfully cried.

Well done on proving yourself to be a liar on this forum.

Hope the fake accounts that you created within the space of a few hours in order to like your OP gives the impression that most of the forum agrees with you and really helps with your mental well-being too.

The truth is that on the night this thread was posted, no-one replied to it. It had more than 100 views but it was ignored because it is petty. How does that make you feel? Only after the first reply did you then spend your evening liking your posts in this thread because you knew the thread would be seen the following day after being bumped to the top of the page. Which IP proxy or VPN did you use?

Also, thanks for marking some of my recent posts as confused. This does not bother my well-being at all because there is meaning in my life.

Almost feel sorry for you.

EDIT: You are now in my ignored users list.

Edited by GuestSingh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, GuestSingh said:

You posted that. It came from your account, not mine, as you have joyfully cried

Yes I posted that after you dug it out of the petition yourself. Calling me Joseph Agnostic before I posted my whole name because I won't be intimidated by you. 

I didn't post evidence to let you come clean or lie. You decided to lie. That's on you. 

The admins can verify but here ya go. 

gs1.jpg.b098c0fe2e27bf4f04f2f8da03f24258.jpggs2.jpg.2fd251392d37992c27b6c7bdbea9eadc.jpggs3.jpg.0f562012d9e7ffa63107a61dc239fc61.jpggs4.jpg.ee9dafd480077fe97cabbdbb26893197.jpg

Welcome to school. This class was provided free of charge to you out of compassion for your total moral destitution. You should remove Singh from your troll account. FakeSingh

Edit: If I was you I'd ignore me too. Constantly getting wrecked must get old. 

You and jagsaw have a lot in common. You both talk about using tor, vpns, proxies, agree a lot, think other people are using fake accounts.  Hmm...I wonder...

Edited by GurjantGnostic
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • What a wonderful post, bro. I'm quite happy to see that you think this way. If you don't mind, could you answer: 1) Were you an atheist before? If not, did you used to think the same way your friend, and other people on the board, like @Kira did? 2) Does your friend speak Punjabi? Not limited to saying "enough" when getting langar. But really speak the language? If he did, perhaps he wouldn't be so confused as to what a "par nari" is. Also, can he read Punjabi? Or is he getting his "gian" from the English translations? And what tuks does he proffer to state that Gurbani condemns rape specifically? Understand that I'm not saying that Gurbani promotes or allows rape. I'm just interested in what he presents to say that Bani bans rape, specifically. The discussion on those tuks would also bring up interesting points which I believe would not be in accord with your friend's thought process. Also quite interesting that he managed to find a ban on polygamy, and not on fornication. What does he present to say that polygamy is banned? So he's saying that you can screw as many girls as you like, and discard them, but you can't enter into a socially binding contract (marriage) with them. That's his idea of "dharam". Agree with you. This is yet another case where the English "translations" are going to create major problems for us where some people are going to be come "lakeer de fakeer" based on erroneous translations. "par nari" does not mean "others' wives". It means "a woman not your wife". If not, Gurbani loses it real import: The atrocious English translation above says you become impure by perving on another's wife. Question: Do you not get impure by perving on your neighbor's unmarried daughter? Puratan Singhs understood the term to be "a woman not your wife". Consider rehitnama Bhai Nand Lal: OK, so according to your friend, you're supposed to call another's wife a "mother" or "daughter". But if she's unmarried, then sky's the limit? That renders the tuk basically meaningless. The Sikh dharam envisions an atmosphere of purity in regards to relations with women. Your friend's mode of thinking leads to constant sexual desire and tension towards unmarried women, which is exactly what Harvey Weinstein (and many others) were doing towards unmarried actresses in the whole MeToo thing.
    • I'm not quibbling over the import of the word "disassociate". What I'm saying is that your statement implied that if your husband (or wife) becomes an atheist you can divorce him.  And I said that that is specifically disallowed in Canon Law. On the other hand, if you were non-Christians in the first place, and you become a Christian, and your husband/wife divorces you, you have not violated anything if you remarry. But: If you were non-Christians in the first place, and you become a Christian, and your husband/wife does not divorce you, you cannot divorce him/her in Canon Law.
    • well bro what does disassociate mean to you ...I heard seperation of ways , but also I understood it to be a grey area since canon law still maintains that they are married despite the dharmic arth of the instruction..
    • hobson's choice , if you have a preselected array who have blessing from on high by centre there is NO choice only eyewash ....even Kejriwal showed his true colours when he didn't oppose the transfer of Jaggi to Tihar Jail
    • Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa. Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh! Often times I hear people say "SGGSJ doesnt say (insert topic) so it must be ok", and in the case of pre-marital sexual relations a dear friend of mine has made the same argument. My friend (non khalsa) argues that Bani specifically condemns rape, adultery, and polygamy, however isnt against sex outside of marriage, provided that both are not married to anyone, and have given consent. My friend likes to disregard anything outside SGGSJ.  He brings up tuks from Gurbani that specifically mention "others wives" to support the argument that its specifically about adultery, however I would argue, the English translation is very shallow, and in the context of Bani, "others wives" is also talking about anyone who isnt your wife, and isnt limited to adultery, but also anyone who isnt married.  Example 1:  Siri  Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Ang 274 ਪਰ ਤ੍ਰਿਅ ਰੂਪੁ ਨ ਪੇਖੈ ਨੇਤ੍ਰ ॥ Par Thria Roop N Paekhai Naethr || ਪਰ means other ਤ੍ਰਿਅ means wife
        Example 2:  Siri  Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Ang 1013
      ਇਸਤ੍ਰੀ ਤਜਿ ਕਰਿ ਕਾਮਿ ਵਿਆਪਿਆ ਚਿਤੁ ਲਾਇਆ ਪਰ ਨਾਰੀ ॥
      Abandoning his own wife, he is engrossed in sexual desire; his thoughts are on the wives of others.   Context:  Its not just talking just about adultery, the English translations are limiting, generally the concept is to not covet another wife, in the context of Bani, doesn't mean you can have sexual relations with women who are not married. Our rehat and history make it clear that one cannot have any sexual relations outside of marriage. There is a specific reason the Guru had 10 forms over 200 years, it was to show Sikhs how to live and practically apply Bani, otherwise the SGGSJ would have been all compiled by Guru Nanak and there would be no long history of the Guru in his many forms.    The SGGSJ isnt a rule book, and isnt going to specifically ban everything that we know is immoral. Where in SGGS Ji does it say that Sri Guru Har Rai Sahib Ji was the 7th Guru Sahib after Sri Guru Hargobind Sahib Ji? Why would a primary Sikh text not name him?  In terms of Gurbani, when taken into context, and even compared to rehat and our history, its clear that sexual relations outside of marriage are discouraged.    Do you agree with my argument? These are just a few tuks I decided to bring up, if anyone has any more, please feel free to share! 
×