Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Good Friday Special (repost)
4 views
Skip to first unread message
pnyikos
Mar 29, 2013, 11:51:25 AM3/29/13
to nyi...@math.sc.edu
Today is Good Friday, a time when something like a billion Christians
worldwide recall the trial and crucifixion of Jesus.
It bears on a theme that can resonate with almost everyone, even
atheists: the condemning to death of someone who, according to the
accounts that have come down to us, was innocent of the charges
against him. Danton and Socrates are two other famous examples, and
there are untold numbers of unknown people who have suffered the same
fate.
Here I am reposting excerpts from a post I did 19 years ago, which are
just as true today as they were back then. At the end I talk about
the condemning to death of innocent newborn infants by mothers, so to
speak. Nora Peal, to whom I was
talking, was a hard-line abortion rights proponent at the time.
Deletia are marked by [...].
n-p...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (peal nora c) writes:
>nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>n-p...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (peal nora c) writes:
>>>William_Mo...@vos.stratus.com writes:
>>>>=> n-p...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (peal nora c) wrote:
>>>>=>>nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
.
>>>>=>>Nora, from your reaction to what I posted about abortionist George Tiller,
>>>>=>>I get the impression that you have no legal OR MORAL objections to the
>>>>=>>killing of a healthy 33-week unborn child *in utero*, not even if there
>>>>=>>is no threat to the health of the woman involved, as long as it is the
>>>>=>>desire of the woman that this killing take place. Is this correct?
.
>>>>=>Correct. Although this is a choice I would not personally make,
>>>>=>I feel I do not have the right to impose that view, legally or
>>>>=>morally, on anyone else.
[...]
>>>That, while I could not personaly justify an elective 33 week
>>>abortion - I would not hold anyone else up to my personal
>>>moral standards on this issue.
>>What about the flip side, Nora? What about those whose moral
>>convictions lead them to engage in nonviolent resistance against
>>these abortions?
Would you try to impose your personal moral standards on them
if abortion were illegal, such as by escorting pregnant women
past them and pushing them out of the way if necessary?
>What about them? Are they holding others up to their personal
>moral standards on this issue? Yes.
[...]
>I believe in free speech, in the right of peaceful demonstrations,
>etc. I do NOT believe in harrassment, blockades, "wanted" posters,
>bombing clinics, or shooting doctors.
Recall that I was talking about a poster who, last year, posted
Be a hero save a whale
Save a baby go to jail.
You made an insulting comment to him, calling him a net.idiot. And
yet, perhaps Randall Terry, the one whose sentencing prompted the two-
liner, actually did save a 33-week unborn baby or more during the ten-
day "siege of Wichita" where Tiller's clinic was being
blockaded, and where a former NOW officer, former Tiller employee, and
later Planned Parenthood employee, Luhra Tivis, said healthy 28 to 32
week old unborn babies were routinely being aborted. And perhaps, as
I stated in another post, even Ms. Tivis may have been understating
the case as far as lateness of gestation is concerned.
That *particular* OR blockade was IMHO in the best tradition of
Gandhi's *satyaghara* and Martin Luther King's civil disobedience.
>>Now I know you do not share my opinion on this, but would you impose
>>your morality on Randall Terry by having him sentenced to jail,
.
>I do not have, nor would I want the power to impose my personal morality
>on another. Mr. Terry was jailed for breaking the law.
And if the law did allow such blockades, would you "impose your
personal morality" by endeavoring to change the law? By "escorting"
as specified above if abortion were against the law? [...] would you
impose your morality on Randall Terry by having him sentenced to jail,
assuming for the sake of argument that the life of *one* 34-week
healthy unborn baby was saved, with no threat to the life or health of
that mother or any of the other women wishing to abort?
[...]
Suppose we are in a society where infanticide is legal. I do not
think it is totally out of the question that the U S A might become
such a society, what with bioethicists talking about "quality of life"
and even posters like Michael Loomis (and Osmo Ronkanen, perhaps?)
letting us know that they have no objections to laws that legalize it.
Now I will take over the driver's seat, and let you ask yourself,
silently if you wish, whether your reactions coincide with mine.
In such a society, I see a woman about to drown her baby. I try to
reason with her, offer to bring up the baby, etc. all to no avail. I
try to take the baby away from her but she resists, and I see that to
save the baby I must commit battery (i.e. I must touch the woman) to
save it. Simple (non-aggravated) battery being only a misdemeanor, I
do it. I, who have never knowingly committed a crime of any kind
before and would not knowingly commit a crime in the USA as it is at
this moment in time.
If there were a special law making it a felony to "steal" a woman's
baby in this way, I doubt that I would have the courage to do it, but
maybe, just maybe...
[...]
Lord, let me walk that lonely road with you,
Under the weight of the wood.
Lord, let me walk that last mile in your shoes,
Under the weight of the wood.
CHORUS:
Freedom can be found laden down
Under the weight of the wood.
Lord, let me cool your lips baked like clay
Under the weight of the wood.
Dried up like rain on a hot dusty day
Under the weight of the wood.
Freedom can be found, etc.
They gave you gall and sour wine for your food
Under the weight of the wood.
Father, forgive them, they don't know what they do
Under the weight of the wood.
Freedom can be found, etc.
Lord, must the journey always end this way,
Under the weight of the wood?
How many times have we nailed you up today
Under the weight of the wood?
Freedom can be found laden down
Under the weight of the wood.
by Jack Mifflin, from the book and the record _From Earthen
Vessels_
Copyright 1975 by World Library Publications, Inc.
=================== end of repost
from http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/a65d1d6325bd2312
Message-ID: <940401133...@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
worldwide recall the trial and crucifixion of Jesus.
It bears on a theme that can resonate with almost everyone, even
atheists: the condemning to death of someone who, according to the
accounts that have come down to us, was innocent of the charges
against him. Danton and Socrates are two other famous examples, and
there are untold numbers of unknown people who have suffered the same
fate.
Here I am reposting excerpts from a post I did 19 years ago, which are
just as true today as they were back then. At the end I talk about
the condemning to death of innocent newborn infants by mothers, so to
speak. Nora Peal, to whom I was
talking, was a hard-line abortion rights proponent at the time.
Deletia are marked by [...].
n-p...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (peal nora c) writes:
>nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>n-p...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (peal nora c) writes:
>>>William_Mo...@vos.stratus.com writes:
>>>>=> n-p...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (peal nora c) wrote:
>>>>=>>nyi...@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
.
>>>>=>>Nora, from your reaction to what I posted about abortionist George Tiller,
>>>>=>>I get the impression that you have no legal OR MORAL objections to the
>>>>=>>killing of a healthy 33-week unborn child *in utero*, not even if there
>>>>=>>is no threat to the health of the woman involved, as long as it is the
>>>>=>>desire of the woman that this killing take place. Is this correct?
.
>>>>=>Correct. Although this is a choice I would not personally make,
>>>>=>I feel I do not have the right to impose that view, legally or
>>>>=>morally, on anyone else.
[...]
>>>That, while I could not personaly justify an elective 33 week
>>>abortion - I would not hold anyone else up to my personal
>>>moral standards on this issue.
>>What about the flip side, Nora? What about those whose moral
>>convictions lead them to engage in nonviolent resistance against
>>these abortions?
Would you try to impose your personal moral standards on them
if abortion were illegal, such as by escorting pregnant women
past them and pushing them out of the way if necessary?
>What about them? Are they holding others up to their personal
>moral standards on this issue? Yes.
[...]
>I believe in free speech, in the right of peaceful demonstrations,
>etc. I do NOT believe in harrassment, blockades, "wanted" posters,
>bombing clinics, or shooting doctors.
Recall that I was talking about a poster who, last year, posted
Be a hero save a whale
Save a baby go to jail.
You made an insulting comment to him, calling him a net.idiot. And
yet, perhaps Randall Terry, the one whose sentencing prompted the two-
liner, actually did save a 33-week unborn baby or more during the ten-
day "siege of Wichita" where Tiller's clinic was being
blockaded, and where a former NOW officer, former Tiller employee, and
later Planned Parenthood employee, Luhra Tivis, said healthy 28 to 32
week old unborn babies were routinely being aborted. And perhaps, as
I stated in another post, even Ms. Tivis may have been understating
the case as far as lateness of gestation is concerned.
That *particular* OR blockade was IMHO in the best tradition of
Gandhi's *satyaghara* and Martin Luther King's civil disobedience.
>>Now I know you do not share my opinion on this, but would you impose
>>your morality on Randall Terry by having him sentenced to jail,
.
>I do not have, nor would I want the power to impose my personal morality
>on another. Mr. Terry was jailed for breaking the law.
And if the law did allow such blockades, would you "impose your
personal morality" by endeavoring to change the law? By "escorting"
as specified above if abortion were against the law? [...] would you
impose your morality on Randall Terry by having him sentenced to jail,
assuming for the sake of argument that the life of *one* 34-week
healthy unborn baby was saved, with no threat to the life or health of
that mother or any of the other women wishing to abort?
[...]
Suppose we are in a society where infanticide is legal. I do not
think it is totally out of the question that the U S A might become
such a society, what with bioethicists talking about "quality of life"
and even posters like Michael Loomis (and Osmo Ronkanen, perhaps?)
letting us know that they have no objections to laws that legalize it.
Now I will take over the driver's seat, and let you ask yourself,
silently if you wish, whether your reactions coincide with mine.
In such a society, I see a woman about to drown her baby. I try to
reason with her, offer to bring up the baby, etc. all to no avail. I
try to take the baby away from her but she resists, and I see that to
save the baby I must commit battery (i.e. I must touch the woman) to
save it. Simple (non-aggravated) battery being only a misdemeanor, I
do it. I, who have never knowingly committed a crime of any kind
before and would not knowingly commit a crime in the USA as it is at
this moment in time.
If there were a special law making it a felony to "steal" a woman's
baby in this way, I doubt that I would have the courage to do it, but
maybe, just maybe...
[...]
Lord, let me walk that lonely road with you,
Under the weight of the wood.
Lord, let me walk that last mile in your shoes,
Under the weight of the wood.
CHORUS:
Freedom can be found laden down
Under the weight of the wood.
Lord, let me cool your lips baked like clay
Under the weight of the wood.
Dried up like rain on a hot dusty day
Under the weight of the wood.
Freedom can be found, etc.
They gave you gall and sour wine for your food
Under the weight of the wood.
Father, forgive them, they don't know what they do
Under the weight of the wood.
Freedom can be found, etc.
Lord, must the journey always end this way,
Under the weight of the wood?
How many times have we nailed you up today
Under the weight of the wood?
Freedom can be found laden down
Under the weight of the wood.
by Jack Mifflin, from the book and the record _From Earthen
Vessels_
Copyright 1975 by World Library Publications, Inc.
=================== end of repost
from http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/a65d1d6325bd2312
Message-ID: <940401133...@milo.math.scarolina.edu>
Jesus Sanchez
Mar 29, 2013, 12:53:10 PM3/29/13
to
In article <0edb7223-02ff-4768-b22c-312eba65af59
@z18g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, nyi...@bellsouth.net says...
sentenced to death. And he never rose fron the dead. The bible is a
bunch of made up stories.
@z18g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, nyi...@bellsouth.net says...
> It bears on a theme that can resonate with almost everyone, even
> atheists: the condemning to death of someone who, according to the
> accounts that have come down to us, was innocent of the charges
> against him. Danton and Socrates are two other famous examples, and
> there are untold numbers of unknown people who have suffered the same
> fate.
>
>
Jesus wasn't innocent. He was a blasphemer and that is why he was
> atheists: the condemning to death of someone who, according to the
> accounts that have come down to us, was innocent of the charges
> against him. Danton and Socrates are two other famous examples, and
> there are untold numbers of unknown people who have suffered the same
> fate.
>
>
sentenced to death. And he never rose fron the dead. The bible is a
bunch of made up stories.
pnyikos
Mar 29, 2013, 12:58:26 PM3/29/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Mar 29, 12:53 pm, Jesus Sanchez <m...@Privacy.net> wrote:
> In article <0edb7223-02ff-4768-b22c-312eba65af59
> @z18g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, nyik...@bellsouth.net says...
> In article <0edb7223-02ff-4768-b22c-312eba65af59
>
> > It bears on a theme that can resonate with almost everyone, even
> > atheists: the condemning to death of someone who, according to the
> > accounts that have come down to us, was innocent of the charges
> > against him. Danton and Socrates are two other famous examples, and
> > there are untold numbers of unknown people who have suffered the same
> > fate.
>
> Jesus wasn't innocent. He was a blasphemer and that is why he was
> sentenced to death. And he never rose fron the dead. The bible is a
> bunch of made up stories.
If the stories are made up, what makes you so sure that he was a
> > It bears on a theme that can resonate with almost everyone, even
> > atheists: the condemning to death of someone who, according to the
> > accounts that have come down to us, was innocent of the charges
> > against him. Danton and Socrates are two other famous examples, and
> > there are untold numbers of unknown people who have suffered the same
> > fate.
>
> Jesus wasn't innocent. He was a blasphemer and that is why he was
> sentenced to death. And he never rose fron the dead. The bible is a
> bunch of made up stories.
blasphemer? And why was he not innocent of wrongdoing worthy of
death, even if he was?
By the way, is Jesus Sanchez your real name? [Yes, I know Jesus is a
common given name among Hispanics, inter alia].
Peter Nyikos
�RLMeasures
Mar 29, 2013, 1:12:29 PM3/29/13
to
In article
<0edb7223-02ff-4768...@z18g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
� You are clearly clueless about atheists.
<0edb7223-02ff-4768...@z18g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Today is Good Friday, a time when something like a billion Christians
> worldwide recall the trial and crucifixion of Jesus.
>
> It bears on a theme that can resonate with almost everyone, even
> atheists: the condemning to death of someone who, according to the
> accounts that have come down to us, was innocent of the charges
> against him. ...
> Today is Good Friday, a time when something like a billion Christians
> worldwide recall the trial and crucifixion of Jesus.
>
> It bears on a theme that can resonate with almost everyone, even
> atheists: the condemning to death of someone who, according to the
> accounts that have come down to us, was innocent of the charges
� You are clearly clueless about atheists.
raven1
Mar 29, 2013, 2:07:46 PM3/29/13
to
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 08:51:25 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Here I am reposting excerpts from a post I did 19 years ago, which are
>just as true today as they were back then.
And just as off-topic for alt.atheism as they were back then. Why did
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Here I am reposting excerpts from a post I did 19 years ago, which are
>just as true today as they were back then.
you post this here, are you bored whining about how unfairly you're
treated over on talk.origins?
---
raven1
aa # 1096
EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
BAAWA Knight
Syd M.
Mar 29, 2013, 3:37:03 PM3/29/13
to
On Mar 29, 2:07 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 08:51:25 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 08:51:25 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>
> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >Here I am reposting excerpts from a post I did 19 years ago, which are
> >just as true today as they were back then.
>
> And just as off-topic for alt.atheism as they were back then. Why did
> you post this here, are you bored whining about how unfairly you're
> treated over on talk.origins?
>
>
Sure. Now he wants an excuse to whine about how unfair he's being
> >Here I am reposting excerpts from a post I did 19 years ago, which are
> >just as true today as they were back then.
>
> And just as off-topic for alt.atheism as they were back then. Why did
> you post this here, are you bored whining about how unfairly you're
> treated over on talk.origins?
>
>
treated here in AA.
PDW
pnyikos
Mar 29, 2013, 10:10:28 PM3/29/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Mar 29, 1:12 pm, r...@somis.org ( RLMeasures) wrote:
> In article
> <0edb7223-02ff-4768-b22c-312eba65a...@z18g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
some atheists may find the whole idea of Good Friday offensive, the
way some are offended by the concept of celebrating Christmas. But it
should not be any more offensive than, say, Martin Luther King day.
And I gave the reason: other famous people have been sentenced
unjustly to death, including Danton and Socrates, and Jesus can stand
in for them all, just as MLK stands in for all those who risked (and
in some cases lost) their lives for the civil rights movement.
Peter Nyikos
> In article
> <0edb7223-02ff-4768-b22c-312eba65a...@z18g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > Today is Good Friday, a time when something like a billion Christians
> > worldwide recall the trial and crucifixion of Jesus.
>
> > It bears on a theme that can resonate with almost everyone, even
> > atheists: the condemning to death of someone who, according to the
> > accounts that have come down to us, was innocent of the charges
> > against him. ...
>
> You are clearly clueless about atheists.
Are you offended by the formula, "even atheists"? I wrote it because
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > Today is Good Friday, a time when something like a billion Christians
> > worldwide recall the trial and crucifixion of Jesus.
>
> > It bears on a theme that can resonate with almost everyone, even
> > atheists: the condemning to death of someone who, according to the
> > accounts that have come down to us, was innocent of the charges
> > against him. ...
>
> You are clearly clueless about atheists.
some atheists may find the whole idea of Good Friday offensive, the
way some are offended by the concept of celebrating Christmas. But it
should not be any more offensive than, say, Martin Luther King day.
And I gave the reason: other famous people have been sentenced
unjustly to death, including Danton and Socrates, and Jesus can stand
in for them all, just as MLK stands in for all those who risked (and
in some cases lost) their lives for the civil rights movement.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
Mar 29, 2013, 10:20:00 PM3/29/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Mar 29, 2:07 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 08:51:25 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>
>
> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >Here I am reposting excerpts from a post I did 19 years ago, which are
> >just as true today as they were back then.
>
> And just as off-topic for alt.atheism as they were back then.
Do you really care about that? If so, why don't you make comments
> >Here I am reposting excerpts from a post I did 19 years ago, which are
> >just as true today as they were back then.
>
> And just as off-topic for alt.atheism as they were back then.
like this when abortion rights fanatics crosspost to alt.atheism?
I participated very extensively in the abortion newsgroups from
November 2008 through much of 2012, and I don't recall you ever
complaning about crossposts to alt.atheism.
> Why did
> you post this here, are you bored whining about how unfairly you're
> treated over on talk.origins?
thinking about the thread, "LIES AND LIARS IN TALK.ORIGINS," that is
an across-the-board expose of how rampant dishonesty is over there.
Fortunately for you, my conscience won't allow me to slander you,
otherwise you might find yourself "whining" about how unfairly I
treat you as I keep right on slandering you.
Peter Nyikos
SkyEyes
Mar 30, 2013, 3:15:19 AM3/30/13
to
On Mar 29, 10:12 am, r...@somis.org ( RLMeasures) wrote:
> In article
> <0edb7223-02ff-4768-b22c-312eba65a...@z18g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> In article
> <0edb7223-02ff-4768-b22c-312eba65a...@z18g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > Today is Good Friday, a time when something like a billion Christians
> > worldwide recall the trial and crucifixion of Jesus.
>
> > It bears on a theme that can resonate with almost everyone, even
> > atheists: the condemning to death of someone who, according to the
> > accounts that have come down to us, was innocent of the charges
> > against him. ...
>
> You are clearly clueless about atheists.
Nyikos is clueless about a *lot* of different stuff. You should get a
> > Today is Good Friday, a time when something like a billion Christians
> > worldwide recall the trial and crucifixion of Jesus.
>
> > It bears on a theme that can resonate with almost everyone, even
> > atheists: the condemning to death of someone who, according to the
> > accounts that have come down to us, was innocent of the charges
> > against him. ...
>
> You are clearly clueless about atheists.
load of him over on talk.origins.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
Jeanne Douglas
Mar 30, 2013, 4:15:39 AM3/30/13
to
In article
<7598cf2d-3d8b-43c2...@y2g2000pbg.googlegroups.com>,
trouble maker?
--
JD
"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden
<7598cf2d-3d8b-43c2...@y2g2000pbg.googlegroups.com>,
SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Mar 29, 10:12 am, r...@somis.org ( RLMeasures) wrote:
> > In article
> > <0edb7223-02ff-4768-b22c-312eba65a...@z18g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > Today is Good Friday, a time when something like a billion Christians
> > > worldwide recall the trial and crucifixion of Jesus.
> >
> > > It bears on a theme that can resonate with almost everyone, even
> > > atheists: the condemning to death of someone who, according to the
> > > accounts that have come down to us, was innocent of the charges
> > > against him. ...
> >
> > You are clearly clueless about atheists.
>
> Nyikos is clueless about a *lot* of different stuff. You should get a
> load of him over on talk.origins.
Wasn't Jesus purportedly convicted of basically being a traitorous
> On Mar 29, 10:12 am, r...@somis.org ( RLMeasures) wrote:
> > In article
> > <0edb7223-02ff-4768-b22c-312eba65a...@z18g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > Today is Good Friday, a time when something like a billion Christians
> > > worldwide recall the trial and crucifixion of Jesus.
> >
> > > It bears on a theme that can resonate with almost everyone, even
> > > atheists: the condemning to death of someone who, according to the
> > > accounts that have come down to us, was innocent of the charges
> > > against him. ...
> >
> > You are clearly clueless about atheists.
>
> Nyikos is clueless about a *lot* of different stuff. You should get a
> load of him over on talk.origins.
trouble maker?
--
JD
"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden
duke
Mar 30, 2013, 7:55:26 AM3/30/13
to
The dukester, American - American
********************************************
Repeal Obama
You simply can't fix stupid.
********************************************
Ben Kaufman
Mar 30, 2013, 9:13:59 AM3/30/13
to
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 01:15:39 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
wrote:
If only he had not given the Wicked Witch of the West those ruby red shoes that
were protecting him.
wrote:
were protecting him.
Ben Kaufman
Mar 30, 2013, 9:15:45 AM3/30/13
to
Ben
•RLMeasures
Mar 30, 2013, 10:25:49 AM3/30/13
to
In article
<1d8866be-3228-4f52...@n4g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Mar 29, 1:12=A0pm, r...@somis.org ( RLMeasures) wrote:
> > In article
> > <0edb7223-02ff-4768-b22c-312eba65a...@z18g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > Today is Good Friday, a time when something like a billion Christians
> > > worldwide recall the trial and crucifixion of Jesus.
> >
> > > It bears on a theme that can resonate with almost everyone, even
> > > atheists: the condemning to death of someone who, according to the
> > > accounts that have come down to us, was innocent of the charges
> > > against him. ...
> >
> > =A0You are clearly clueless about atheists.
They are far from cohesive.
>I wrote it because
> some atheists may find the whole idea of Good Friday offensive, the
> way some are offended by the concept of celebrating Christmas. But it
> should not be any more offensive than, say, Martin Luther King day.
>
*** I'm difficult to offend but I'm easily bored. I celebrate days when
banks are open
<1d8866be-3228-4f52...@n4g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Mar 29, 1:12=A0pm, r...@somis.org ( RLMeasures) wrote:
> > In article
> > <0edb7223-02ff-4768-b22c-312eba65a...@z18g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > Today is Good Friday, a time when something like a billion Christians
> > > worldwide recall the trial and crucifixion of Jesus.
> >
> > > It bears on a theme that can resonate with almost everyone, even
> > > atheists: the condemning to death of someone who, according to the
> > > accounts that have come down to us, was innocent of the charges
> > > against him. ...
> >
>
> Are you offended by the formula, "even atheists"?
*** that's no formula. Atheists come in many types.
> Are you offended by the formula, "even atheists"?
They are far from cohesive.
>I wrote it because
> some atheists may find the whole idea of Good Friday offensive, the
> way some are offended by the concept of celebrating Christmas. But it
> should not be any more offensive than, say, Martin Luther King day.
>
banks are open
•RLMeasures
Mar 30, 2013, 10:27:28 AM3/30/13
to
> On Mar 29, 10:12=A0am, r...@somis.org ( RLMeasures) wrote:
> > In article
> > <0edb7223-02ff-4768-b22c-312eba65a...@z18g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > Today is Good Friday, a time when something like a billion Christians
> > > worldwide recall the trial and crucifixion of Jesus.
> >
> > > It bears on a theme that can resonate with almost everyone, even
> > > atheists: the condemning to death of someone who, according to the
> > > accounts that have come down to us, was innocent of the charges
> > > against him. ...
> >
> > =A0You are clearly clueless about atheists.
> > In article
> > <0edb7223-02ff-4768-b22c-312eba65a...@z18g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > Today is Good Friday, a time when something like a billion Christians
> > > worldwide recall the trial and crucifixion of Jesus.
> >
> > > It bears on a theme that can resonate with almost everyone, even
> > > atheists: the condemning to death of someone who, according to the
> > > accounts that have come down to us, was innocent of the charges
> > > against him. ...
> >
>
> Nyikos is clueless about a *lot* of different stuff. You should get a
> load of him over on talk.origins.
>
• I get enough here. Tnx Brenda.
> Nyikos is clueless about a *lot* of different stuff. You should get a
> load of him over on talk.origins.
>
linuxgal
Mar 30, 2013, 11:26:19 AM3/30/13
to
Ben Kaufman wrote:
>
> If only he had not given the Wicked Witch of the West those ruby red shoes that
> were protecting him.
Not only that, but he had twelve legions of flying monkeys that would
>
> If only he had not given the Wicked Witch of the West those ruby red shoes that
> were protecting him.
come the instant he called.
--
Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0
sbalneav
Mar 30, 2013, 10:42:13 AM3/30/13
to
In alt.atheism pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Or if he did, that the deistic claims surrounding him were true.
If you're going to celebrate the idea of standing up for what you believe in,
reardless of the consequences, why not celebrate Tank Man:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Man
> And I gave the reason: other famous people have been sentenced
> unjustly to death, including Danton and Socrates, and Jesus can stand
> in for them all,
Why? On what do you base this assertion? Why can't we have the death of
Socrates (who died for his freethinking) stand in for Jesus? Do you think
Christians would get behind this sentiment?
> just as MLK stands in for all those who risked (and
> in some cases lost) their lives for the civil rights movement.
Again, MLK was IDENTIFIABLY and DEMONSTRABLY one of the leaders of the civil
rights movements. His contributions to said movement are a historical fact.
When there's the same level of credible, verifiable evidence for Jesus as there
is for MLK, maybe...
> Peter Nyikos
--
(` |) | My two favorite things in life are libraries and bicycles.
_) |) | They both move people forward without wasting anything. The
a.a #2171 | perfect day: riding a bike to the library. -- Pete Golkin
> On Mar 29, 1:12ï¿œpm, r...@somis.org ( RLMeasures) wrote:
>> In article
>> <0edb7223-02ff-4768-b22c-312eba65a...@z18g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> > Today is Good Friday, a time when something like a billion Christians
>> > worldwide recall the trial and crucifixion of Jesus.
>>
>> > It bears on a theme that can resonate with almost everyone, even
>> > atheists: the condemning to death of someone who, according to the
>> > accounts that have come down to us, was innocent of the charges
>> > against him. ...
>>
>> ï¿œYou are clearly clueless about atheists.
>> In article
>> <0edb7223-02ff-4768-b22c-312eba65a...@z18g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> > Today is Good Friday, a time when something like a billion Christians
>> > worldwide recall the trial and crucifixion of Jesus.
>>
>> > It bears on a theme that can resonate with almost everyone, even
>> > atheists: the condemning to death of someone who, according to the
>> > accounts that have come down to us, was innocent of the charges
>> > against him. ...
>>
>
> Are you offended by the formula, "even atheists"? I wrote it because
> some atheists may find the whole idea of Good Friday offensive, the
> way some are offended by the concept of celebrating Christmas. But it
> should not be any more offensive than, say, Martin Luther King day.
We know Martin Luther King existed. We don't know that Jesus existed.
> Are you offended by the formula, "even atheists"? I wrote it because
> some atheists may find the whole idea of Good Friday offensive, the
> way some are offended by the concept of celebrating Christmas. But it
> should not be any more offensive than, say, Martin Luther King day.
Or if he did, that the deistic claims surrounding him were true.
If you're going to celebrate the idea of standing up for what you believe in,
reardless of the consequences, why not celebrate Tank Man:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Man
> And I gave the reason: other famous people have been sentenced
> unjustly to death, including Danton and Socrates, and Jesus can stand
> in for them all,
Socrates (who died for his freethinking) stand in for Jesus? Do you think
Christians would get behind this sentiment?
> just as MLK stands in for all those who risked (and
> in some cases lost) their lives for the civil rights movement.
rights movements. His contributions to said movement are a historical fact.
When there's the same level of credible, verifiable evidence for Jesus as there
is for MLK, maybe...
> Peter Nyikos
--
(` |) | My two favorite things in life are libraries and bicycles.
_) |) | They both move people forward without wasting anything. The
a.a #2171 | perfect day: riding a bike to the library. -- Pete Golkin
raven1
Mar 30, 2013, 11:22:50 AM3/30/13
to
be participating on Usenet? I cannot think of anyone else who spends
so much time and effort complaining about perceived slights, in any
group.
FreeThink
Mar 30, 2013, 12:18:20 PM3/30/13
to
battle?
FreeThink
Mar 30, 2013, 12:23:18 PM3/30/13
to
On Mar 30, 6:13 am, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-
doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 01:15:39 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article
> ><7598cf2d-3d8b-43c2-8a05-7c939d04e...@y2g2000pbg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
If only he had repeated the phrase, "There is no place like reality,
there is no place like reality.."
doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 01:15:39 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article
> ><7598cf2d-3d8b-43c2-8a05-7c939d04e...@y2g2000pbg.googlegroups.com>,
> > SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> On Mar 29, 10:12 am, r...@somis.org ( RLMeasures) wrote:
> >> > In article
> >> > <0edb7223-02ff-4768-b22c-312eba65a...@z18g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> > > Today is Good Friday, a time when something like a billion Christians
> >> > > worldwide recall the trial and crucifixion of Jesus.
>
> >> > > It bears on a theme that can resonate with almost everyone, even
> >> > > atheists: the condemning to death of someone who, according to the
> >> > > accounts that have come down to us, was innocent of the charges
> >> > > against him. ...
>
> >> > You are clearly clueless about atheists.
>
> >> Nyikos is clueless about a *lot* of different stuff. You should get a
> >> load of him over on talk.origins.
>
> >Wasn't Jesus purportedly convicted of basically being a traitorous
> >trouble maker?
>
> If only he had not given the Wicked Witch of the West those ruby red shoes that
> were protecting him.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> On Mar 29, 10:12 am, r...@somis.org ( RLMeasures) wrote:
> >> > In article
> >> > <0edb7223-02ff-4768-b22c-312eba65a...@z18g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> > > Today is Good Friday, a time when something like a billion Christians
> >> > > worldwide recall the trial and crucifixion of Jesus.
>
> >> > > It bears on a theme that can resonate with almost everyone, even
> >> > > atheists: the condemning to death of someone who, according to the
> >> > > accounts that have come down to us, was innocent of the charges
> >> > > against him. ...
>
> >> > You are clearly clueless about atheists.
>
> >> Nyikos is clueless about a *lot* of different stuff. You should get a
> >> load of him over on talk.origins.
>
> >Wasn't Jesus purportedly convicted of basically being a traitorous
> >trouble maker?
>
> If only he had not given the Wicked Witch of the West those ruby red shoes that
>
> - Show quoted text -
If only he had repeated the phrase, "There is no place like reality,
there is no place like reality.."
Ben Kaufman
Mar 30, 2013, 7:22:49 PM3/30/13
to
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 07:26:19 -0800, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>Ben Kaufman wrote:
>>
>> If only he had not given the Wicked Witch of the West those ruby red shoes that
>> were protecting him.
>
>Not only that, but he had twelve legions of flying monkeys that would
>come the instant he called.
It must have been Shabbot, he gave them the day off.
>Ben Kaufman wrote:
>>
>> If only he had not given the Wicked Witch of the West those ruby red shoes that
>> were protecting him.
>
>Not only that, but he had twelve legions of flying monkeys that would
>come the instant he called.
SkyEyes
Mar 31, 2013, 2:24:31 AM3/31/13
to
On Mar 30, 1:15 am, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> In article
> Wasn't Jesus purportedly convicted of basically being a traitorous
> trouble maker?
Pretty much, yeah.
> trouble maker?
Brenda
•RLMeasures
Mar 31, 2013, 10:02:41 AM3/31/13
to
In article
<a6038938-4cb3-4f09...@ve4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> wrote:
• The thing that pissed off the religious authorities was propagating the
awful truth about them.
<a6038938-4cb3-4f09...@ve4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> wrote:
awful truth about them.
pnyikos
Apr 1, 2013, 1:35:27 PM4/1/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Mar 30, 3:15 am, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Mar 29, 10:12 am, r...@somis.org ( RLMeasures) wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <0edb7223-02ff-4768-b22c-312eba65a...@z18g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > Today is Good Friday, a time when something like a billion Christians
> > > worldwide recall the trial and crucifixion of Jesus.
>
> > > It bears on a theme that can resonate with almost everyone, even
> > > atheists: the condemning to death of someone who, according to the
> > > accounts that have come down to us, was innocent of the charges
> > > against him. ...
>
> > You are clearly clueless about atheists.
You, Brenda, were shown to be clueless about what a thread of mine was
> On Mar 29, 10:12 am, r...@somis.org ( RLMeasures) wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <0edb7223-02ff-4768-b22c-312eba65a...@z18g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > Today is Good Friday, a time when something like a billion Christians
> > > worldwide recall the trial and crucifixion of Jesus.
>
> > > It bears on a theme that can resonate with almost everyone, even
> > > atheists: the condemning to death of someone who, according to the
> > > accounts that have come down to us, was innocent of the charges
> > > against him. ...
>
> > You are clearly clueless about atheists.
all about. Even Mitchell Coffey corrected you on this. And so your
comment is a disguised Pee Wee Hermanism.
> Nyikos is clueless about a *lot* of different stuff. You should get a
> load of him over on talk.origins.
small needles in a lot of huge haystacks.
But cheer up: I don't think any of them are stupid enough to start
searching based on your spiteful allegation.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
Apr 1, 2013, 1:37:08 PM4/1/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Mar 30, 9:15 am, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-
doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
Who are you? I don't know you from Adam, and I think the relation is
symmetrical.
Peter Nyikos
doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
symmetrical.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
Apr 1, 2013, 1:46:12 PM4/1/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Mar 30, 10:42 am, sbalneav <sbaln...@alt-atheism.org> wrote:
> In alt.atheism pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
changed the subject when I wrote the following:
> > Are you offended by the formula, "even atheists"? I wrote it because
> > some atheists may find the whole idea of Good Friday offensive,
I wonder whether any states still make Good Friday a legal holiday.
There were quite a few of them back in the 1950's. Some old-time
atheists might still be resentful about that. Maybe even R.L.
Measures himself, seeing as how he likes to have banks open.
> > the
> > way some are offended by the concept of celebrating Christmas. But it
> > should not be any more offensive than, say, Martin Luther King day.
>
> We know Martin Luther King existed. We don't know that Jesus existed.
The evidence for his existence (as opposed to the miracles that are
attributed to him, including his resurrection) is very strong.
Do you also claim that we don't know St. Paul, a.k.a. Saul of Tarsus,
existed?
Peter Nyikos
> In alt.atheism pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 1:12 pm, r...@somis.org ( RLMeasures) wrote:
> >> In article
> >> <0edb7223-02ff-4768-b22c-312eba65a...@z18g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> > Today is Good Friday, a time when something like a billion Christians
> >> > worldwide recall the trial and crucifixion of Jesus.
>
> >> > It bears on a theme that can resonate with almost everyone, even
> >> > atheists: the condemning to death of someone who, according to the
> >> > accounts that have come down to us, was innocent of the charges
> >> > against him. ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 1:12 pm, r...@somis.org ( RLMeasures) wrote:
> >> In article
> >> <0edb7223-02ff-4768-b22c-312eba65a...@z18g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> > Today is Good Friday, a time when something like a billion Christians
> >> > worldwide recall the trial and crucifixion of Jesus.
>
> >> > It bears on a theme that can resonate with almost everyone, even
> >> > atheists: the condemning to death of someone who, according to the
> >> > accounts that have come down to us, was innocent of the charges
> >> > against him. ...
>
> >> You are clearly clueless about atheists.
R.L. Measures called me clueless about atheists (see above) but
changed the subject when I wrote the following:
> > Are you offended by the formula, "even atheists"? I wrote it because
> > some atheists may find the whole idea of Good Friday offensive,
There were quite a few of them back in the 1950's. Some old-time
atheists might still be resentful about that. Maybe even R.L.
Measures himself, seeing as how he likes to have banks open.
> > the
> > way some are offended by the concept of celebrating Christmas. But it
> > should not be any more offensive than, say, Martin Luther King day.
>
> We know Martin Luther King existed. We don't know that Jesus existed.
attributed to him, including his resurrection) is very strong.
Do you also claim that we don't know St. Paul, a.k.a. Saul of Tarsus,
existed?
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
Apr 1, 2013, 2:13:02 PM4/1/13
to nyi...@belllsouth.net
On Mar 30, 11:22 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 19:20:00 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Mar 29, 2:07 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 08:51:25 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>
> >> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >Here I am reposting excerpts from a post I did 19 years ago, which are
> >> >just as true today as they were back then.
>
> >> And just as off-topic for alt.atheism as they were back then.
>
> >Do you really care about that? If so, why don't you make comments
> >like this when abortion rights fanatics crosspost to alt.atheism?
>
> >I participated very extensively in the abortion newsgroups from
> >November 2008 through much of 2012, and I don't recall you ever
> >complaning about crossposts to alt.atheism.
<crickets chirping>
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 19:20:00 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Mar 29, 2:07 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 08:51:25 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>
> >> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >Here I am reposting excerpts from a post I did 19 years ago, which are
> >> >just as true today as they were back then.
>
> >> And just as off-topic for alt.atheism as they were back then.
>
> >Do you really care about that? If so, why don't you make comments
> >like this when abortion rights fanatics crosspost to alt.atheism?
>
> >I participated very extensively in the abortion newsgroups from
> >November 2008 through much of 2012, and I don't recall you ever
> >complaning about crossposts to alt.atheism.
> >> Why did
> >> you post this here, are you bored whining about how unfairly you're
> >> treated over on talk.origins?
>
> >I can't be bored with something that didn't take place. If you are
> >thinking about the thread, "LIES AND LIARS IN TALK.ORIGINS," that is
> >an across-the-board expose of how rampant dishonesty is over there.
> >Fortunately for you, my conscience won't allow me to slander you,
> >otherwise you might find yourself "whining" about how unfairly I
> >treat you as I keep right on slandering you.
your use of the word, so I played it straight, using the standard
definition of the word in writing "didn't take place". In the next
paragraph, on the other hand, I used the meaning that has evolved due
to massive intellectual inbreeding among regulars in the more
contentious newsgroups.
Here is how it works: as soon as you accuse someone of slandering you,
you are "whining" about being treated unfairly. [Note how I did *not*
put "unfairly" in scare quotes: slander IS unfair treatment..]
> Has anyone ever suggested that you might be a little thin-skinned to
> be participating on Usenet?
John Harshman and Paul Gans, arguably the two most influential
talk.origins regulars, give much more evidence of being thin-skinned
than I do.
Documentation on request.
> I cannot think of anyone else who spends
> so much time and effort complaining about perceived slights, in any
> group.
Harshman and Paul Gans to me.
I suspect, though, that you have merely seen some people claiming such
things about me, and then getting no denial from me. In fact, this is
the very first post anywhere in which I've bothered to set the record
straight about this canard.
That in itself should give you some clue, no matter how slight, as to
how invalid that canard is.
Here's another little detail: on a thread where I was documenting the
existence of witch-hunts against two people, I deliberately used pairs
of letters to designate people so that people would focus on WHAT was
being done rather than WHO was doing it.
[The pairs were not initials of the people, except that I had
overlooked that "QJ" included the middle initial of the witch-hunter
so designated.]
Earlier this year, SkyEyes posted the same kind of foolishness you've
posted here, only she was a lot less diplomatic about it. She did it
because she thought that I was complaining about witch-hunts against
me, and it actually took one of the witch-hunters to set her straight
about that.
Hence, her post to this thread, alleging cluelessness by me, was a
case of someone in a glass house throwing stones.
There, I've filled this reply to you with "whining" and "complaining
about perceived slights" by your standards. What are you going to do
about it?
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
Apr 1, 2013, 2:20:23 PM4/1/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Mar 30, 4:15 am, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> Wasn't Jesus purportedly convicted of basically being a traitorous
> trouble maker?
R.L. Measures had an interesting angle on that. I wonder whether he
> Wasn't Jesus purportedly convicted of basically being a traitorous
> trouble maker?
thinks Jesus was a real person, unlike "sbalneav"; after all, he left
off "purportedly" (or words to that effect) in reply to you.
By the way, Jeanne, isn't it you who thought W.T.S. was a pro-lifer
pretending to be pro-abortion just to make abortion rights proponents
look bad?
Have you seen enough of his posts to convince you otherwise?
Peter Nyikos
Ben Kaufman
Apr 1, 2013, 4:30:43 PM4/1/13
to
Ben
raven1
Apr 1, 2013, 5:10:18 PM4/1/13
to
On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 11:13:02 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> Has anyone ever suggested that you might be a little thin-skinned to
>> be participating on Usenet?
>
>Some have, in talk.origins, but they are barking up the wrong tree.
>John Harshman and Paul Gans, arguably the two most influential
>talk.origins regulars, give much more evidence of being thin-skinned
>than I do.
Hardly.
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> Has anyone ever suggested that you might be a little thin-skinned to
>> be participating on Usenet?
>
>Some have, in talk.origins, but they are barking up the wrong tree.
>John Harshman and Paul Gans, arguably the two most influential
>talk.origins regulars, give much more evidence of being thin-skinned
>than I do.
pnyikos
Apr 2, 2013, 3:51:13 PM4/2/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Apr 1, 4:30 pm, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-
doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
Given your reply below, I get the impression that you post like this
in reply to anyone who rocks the alt.atheism boat.
Would you like to post something to create a different impression?
> >Who are you? I don't know you from Adam, and I think the relation is
> >symmetrical.
>
> >Peter Nyikos
>
> I am who I am, troll.
>
> Ben
I am not a troll, so your reply to me is even worse than unhelpful.
Peter Nyikos
doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
in reply to anyone who rocks the alt.atheism boat.
Would you like to post something to create a different impression?
> >Who are you? I don't know you from Adam, and I think the relation is
> >symmetrical.
>
> >Peter Nyikos
>
> I am who I am, troll.
>
> Ben
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
Apr 2, 2013, 3:54:55 PM4/2/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Apr 1, 5:10 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 11:13:02 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>
> On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 11:13:02 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>
> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> Has anyone ever suggested that you might be a little thin-skinned to
> >> be participating on Usenet?
>
> >Some have, in talk.origins, but they are barking up the wrong tree.
> >John Harshman and Paul Gans, arguably the two most influential
> >talk.origins regulars, give much more evidence of being thin-skinned
> >than I do.
>
> Hardly.
Your massive deletia create the impression that you have a closed
> >> Has anyone ever suggested that you might be a little thin-skinned to
> >> be participating on Usenet?
>
> >Some have, in talk.origins, but they are barking up the wrong tree.
> >John Harshman and Paul Gans, arguably the two most influential
> >talk.origins regulars, give much more evidence of being thin-skinned
> >than I do.
>
> Hardly.
mind. In fact, that impression is suggested even with your very first
deletion, which was of:
"Documentation on request."
Would you like the readers outside alt.atheism to think that you are a
typical atheist?
Peter Nyikos
raven1
Apr 2, 2013, 8:40:17 PM4/2/13
to
On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 12:54:55 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>On Apr 1, 5:10�pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 11:13:02 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>>
>> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> Has anyone ever suggested that you might be a little thin-skinned to
>> >> be participating on Usenet?
>>
>> >Some have, in talk.origins, but they are barking up the wrong tree.
>> >John Harshman and Paul Gans, arguably the two most influential
>> >talk.origins regulars, give much more evidence of being thin-skinned
>> >than I do.
>>
>> Hardly.
>
>Your massive deletia create the impression that you have a closed
>mind.
Or that I read talk.origins daily, and don't share your opinion of
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>On Apr 1, 5:10�pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 11:13:02 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>>
>> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> Has anyone ever suggested that you might be a little thin-skinned to
>> >> be participating on Usenet?
>>
>> >Some have, in talk.origins, but they are barking up the wrong tree.
>> >John Harshman and Paul Gans, arguably the two most influential
>> >talk.origins regulars, give much more evidence of being thin-skinned
>> >than I do.
>>
>> Hardly.
>
>Your massive deletia create the impression that you have a closed
>mind.
Harshman and Gans.
> In fact, that impression is suggested even with your very first
>deletion, which was of:
>
>"Documentation on request."
collection of cherry-picked quotes is necessary to help me form an
opinion of two regulars whose posts I normally follow, but thanks for
the offer.
>Would you like the readers outside alt.atheism to think that you are a
>typical atheist?
Christopher A. Lee
Apr 3, 2013, 11:55:26 AM4/3/13
to
On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 12:51:13 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>On Apr 1, 4:30�pm, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-
>doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 10:37:08 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >On Mar 30, 9:15 am, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-
>> >doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 19:20:00 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> >On Mar 29, 2:07 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 08:51:25 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>>
>> >> >> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >Here I am reposting excerpts from a post I did 19 years ago, which are
>> >> >> >just as true today as they were back then.
And you're still the same dishonest, nasty, ignorant, stupid, lying
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>On Apr 1, 4:30�pm, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-
>doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 10:37:08 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >On Mar 30, 9:15 am, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-
>> >doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 19:20:00 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> >On Mar 29, 2:07 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 08:51:25 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>>
>> >> >> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >Here I am reposting excerpts from a post I did 19 years ago, which are
>> >> >> >just as true today as they were back then.
fuckwit you were then.
>> >> >> And just as off-topic for alt.atheism as they were back then.
>>
>> >> >Do you really care about that?
submerge our regular business on your stupidity, rudeness, ignorance
and outright lies.
Was that clear enough even for you?
>> >> > If so, why don't you make comments
>> >> >like this when abortion rights fanatics crosspost to alt.atheism?
But most of us have huge killfiles to filter out the neverending
nonsense and nastiness which is all its regulars seem to post.
>> >> >I participated very extensively in the abortion newsgroups from
>> >> >November 2008 through much of 2012, and I don't recall you ever
>> >> >complaning about crossposts to alt.atheism.
honest to say here, about atheists or anything else.
And it's pretty clear you still haven't.
All that time you have lied about evolution and other origins-related
sciences, and about those who understand them or even accept them.
Which they would be stupid not to because they part of an objective
knowledge base in the real world.
And about eabortion, those who have them and those who take the
trouble to correct what was never an honest mistake on your part even
nineteen years ago.
As well as about atheists, to atheists. Especially after they correct
you when you misrepresent them and you arrogantly, nastily insist
we're not telling the truth about ourselves. And you have never
changed in all those nineteen years.
>> >> >> Why did
>> >> >> you post this here, are you bored whining about how unfairly you're
>> >> >> treated over on talk.origins?
>>
>> >> >I can't be bored with something that didn't take place. If you are
>> >> >thinking about the thread, "LIES AND LIARS IN TALK.ORIGINS," that is
>> >> >an across-the-board expose of how rampant dishonesty is over there.
It is impossible to be honest, intelligent and a creationist.
>> >> >Fortunately for you, my conscience won't allow me to slander you,
>> >> >otherwise you might find yourself "whining" about how unfairly I
>> >> >treat you as I keep right on slandering you.
You slander atheists, those who have abortions and anybody who
acknowledges the latest scientific understanding when it contradicts
your fairy tales.
>> >> >Peter Nyikos
>>
>> >> Get over yourself, seriously.
>
>Given your reply below, I get the impression that you post like this
>in reply to anyone who rocks the alt.atheism boat.
fuckwit.
Who is too stupid to understand that atheists are merely part of the
real world beyond your religious fantasies, who don't happen to be
theist.
It is exactly equivalent to not believing in the fairies at the bottom
of the garden, so there is no boat to rock.
Which was also pointed out to you nineteen years ago and regularly
since then.
>Would you like to post something to create a different impression?
common sense?
>> >Who are you? �I don't know you from Adam, and I think the relation is
>> >symmetrical.
>>
>> >Peter Nyikos
>>
>> I am who I am, troll.
>>
>> Ben
>
>I am not a troll, so your reply to me is even worse than unhelpful.
You post your flame-baiting nastiness and lies where they are
off-topic and you turn even nastier when people respond.
You laced this message with button-pushing falsehoods about atheists
and cross-posted it to alt.atheism.
Stop pretending, and stop lying.
>Peter Nyikos
...who obviously needs psychiatric treatment for his obsessive
behaviour towards those with a better grasp of reality.
pnyikos
Apr 3, 2013, 2:00:27 PM4/3/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Apr 2, 8:40 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 12:54:55 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Apr 1, 5:10 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 11:13:02 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>
> >> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >> Has anyone ever suggested that you might be a little thin-skinned to
> >> >> be participating on Usenet?
>
> >> >Some have, in talk.origins, but they are barking up the wrong tree.
> >> >John Harshman and Paul Gans, arguably the two most influential
> >> >talk.origins regulars, give much more evidence of being thin-skinned
> >> >than I do.
>
> >> Hardly.
>
> >Your massive deletia create the impression that you have a closed
> >mind.
And that applies not just where Harshman and Gans are concerned, but
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 12:54:55 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Apr 1, 5:10 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 11:13:02 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>
> >> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >> Has anyone ever suggested that you might be a little thin-skinned to
> >> >> be participating on Usenet?
>
> >> >Some have, in talk.origins, but they are barking up the wrong tree.
> >> >John Harshman and Paul Gans, arguably the two most influential
> >> >talk.origins regulars, give much more evidence of being thin-skinned
> >> >than I do.
>
> >> Hardly.
>
> >Your massive deletia create the impression that you have a closed
> >mind.
where the whole theme of "whining" is concerned.
> Or that I read talk.origins daily, and don't share your opinion of
> Harshman and Gans.
I seriously doubt that you read more than 10% of all posts. Since
mine and Harshman's are among the longest, I suspect the percentage
there is much smaller.
Part of my suspicion stems from the fact that you almost never post to
the threads on which I am very active.
> > In fact, that impression is suggested even with your very first
> >deletion, which was of:
>
> >"Documentation on request."
>
> As a regular participant in that august group, I hardly think a
> collection of cherry-picked quotes
show how thin-skinned Harshman and Gans can be, and I challenge you to
match me post for post.
"cherry-picked," you see, is another one of those words that have had
their meaning distorted by massive intellectual inbreeding.
Obviously, only a few posts by them are likely to show *genuine*
whining, because I am one of the few people here who knows their
weaknesses, and knows how to capitalize on them.
Both of them shamelessly stretch the truth in their whining, and Gans
even lied shamelessly while whining "like a stuck pig" in one post I
could show you.
Do you have the guts to meet my challenge? You've already failed
miserably to meet one challenge by me, you know, via your massive
deletia.
> is necessary to help me form an
> opinion of two regulars whose posts I normally follow, but thanks for
> the offer.
>
> >Would you like the readers outside alt.atheism to think that you are a
> >typical atheist?
>
> What's a "typical atheist", Peter? Please, do go on.
lot less closed minded than you seem to be, judging from your
performance here.
In the 1990's alt.atheism had some quite sincere, open minded people.
Has your kind driven them away?
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
Apr 3, 2013, 2:11:26 PM4/3/13
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
On Apr 3, 11:55 am, Christopher A. Lee <chrislee95...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> >> >> >> And just as off-topic for alt.atheism as they were back then.
>
> >> >> >Do you really care about that?
>
> Of course we do,
Unsupported (except with Truth by Blatant Assertion, snipped) claim
noted.
Remaining unsupported assertions and unsupportable insults by you,
snipped, save one, preserved below.
> >> >> >I can't be bored with something that didn't take place. If you are
> >> >> >thinking about the thread, "LIES AND LIARS IN TALK.ORIGINS," that is
> >> >> >an across-the-board expose of how rampant dishonesty is over there.
[snip unsupportable claim by you]
> It is impossible to be honest, intelligent and a creationist.
This may be true. Fortunately, I am not a creationist by ANY accepted
definition of the word.
By the way, does every single statement I made above (except for "This
may be true") count as whining according to your definition of
"whining"?
Peter Nyikos
wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 12:51:13 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>
>
> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Apr 1, 4:30 pm, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-
> >doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 10:37:08 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >On Mar 30, 9:15 am, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-
> >> >doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 19:20:00 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >> >On Mar 29, 2:07 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 08:51:25 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>
> >> >> >> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >Here I am reposting excerpts from a post I did 19 years ago, which are
> >> >> >> >just as true today as they were back then.
>
> And you're still the same dishonest, nasty, ignorant, stupid, lying
> fuckwit you were then.
Unsupported (and unsupportable) insults noted.
> >On Apr 1, 4:30 pm, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-
> >doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 10:37:08 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >On Mar 30, 9:15 am, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-
> >> >doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 19:20:00 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >> >On Mar 29, 2:07 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 08:51:25 -0700 (PDT), pnyikos
>
> >> >> >> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >Here I am reposting excerpts from a post I did 19 years ago, which are
> >> >> >> >just as true today as they were back then.
>
> And you're still the same dishonest, nasty, ignorant, stupid, lying
> fuckwit you were then.
> >> >> >> And just as off-topic for alt.atheism as they were back then.
>
> >> >> >Do you really care about that?
>
> Of course we do,
noted.
Remaining unsupported assertions and unsupportable insults by you,
snipped, save one, preserved below.
> >> >> >I can't be bored with something that didn't take place. If you are
> >> >> >thinking about the thread, "LIES AND LIARS IN TALK.ORIGINS," that is
> >> >> >an across-the-board expose of how rampant dishonesty is over there.
> It is impossible to be honest, intelligent and a creationist.
definition of the word.
By the way, does every single statement I made above (except for "This
may be true") count as whining according to your definition of
"whining"?
Peter Nyikos
0 new messages