[user104658]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Yeah, you didn't misread anyone's post. They're back peddling. Yeah.

This is still serious debates, right?

If you weren't making a general statement about "people from council estates" with your posts, and Kazanne wasn't furthering it by pointing out that the few, *ahem*, "rough, feral" people she knows are also non-religious...

...then both posts, rather than being offensive, were simply entirely pointless. As in... they were saying nothing. At all.

I might as well say

"Oh yeah I knew a random guy once of non-specific origin who wasn't religious, and he owns a hat. So there. Also I know a girl who IS religious, and she has both a face and also feet."

What you WERE, in fact, suggesting was that you have anecdotal evidence that "uneducated scheme folks" are often non-religious, in an attempt to disprove LT's suggestion that there is a correlation between education and religiosity. Kazanne replied to you in order to back up this statement, by confirming that the "rough diamonds"(??? she just means rough people) she knows are indeed non-religious - and also "Feral, uncaring and hostile".

You're now trying to claim that you were only talking about those specific people. For, presumably, absolutely no reason at all because if you WERE both speaking just about those people, then you were not trying to make a point and thus had... well... no point.

Just to be illustrative of the backpedaling, though...

Originally Posted by Kazanne

none of them are religious in any way,they are ferrel ,uncaring and hostile.

7 posts later, the same people are suddenly described as "good-hearted". What? Are they uncaring and hostile, or are they good-hearted?