I feel bad
Greywolf
their faith. I have this mental conception of Christians (who we've all met
before) who are basically 'good' people. Their faith means very little to
me, actually. (It hurts though, when you want
to 'date' a girl who is a professed Christian, and who likes you a lot, but
then suddenly won't give you the time-of-day once she learns you're a
staunch atheist. What's with that?) I personally feel that if a person is
open-minded enough, and still chooses to believe in deity, that's perfectly
fine. (One of my favorite things to say to a potential love-interest is,
'Hell, I don't care if you believe that there's cows grazing on the moon.
I'd think you're crazy. But if that's your belief, I'd have to live with it.
I would just expect you to respect my disbelief, as well. [Well now you know
why I have been single for the past 2000 years!]) Anyway, I make a mental
distinction between people who I feel are 'good' Christians' who basically
want to be left alone with their faith, and who feel that their faith is
personal, and no one else's business, and the 'others.' The 'good'
Christians have no interest in imposing their belief-system upon *anyone*
else (outside the immediate family). These Christians are basically
harmless - well at least to me, they are. Then we have the deity of the
professional theists whose God they cannot adequately define but believe in
strongly, nevertheless.I feel bad going around attacking them.
The problem is that the extremists within that faith have co-opted it for
their own odious reasons. What ends up happening is that while your
attacking a Pat Robertson-type 'thing' (I hesitate to use the word,
'Christian') you end up attacking your grandma in the process. It is akin to
laying down an artillery barrage and ending up wounding innocent civilians.
It leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
So what do we atheists do? Do we throw the baby out with the bath water or
what? I am clueless here. I wonder: Is there a day coming when the
intellectuals of the world rise up together, and in force (ala the ID versus
Evolution struggle), and begin dismantling the Judeo-Christian concept of
deity piece-by-(vulgar) piece through the mass-media? In other words, are
the Intellectuals going to break their relative silence and finally go on
the offensive and show the 'faithful' (through an avalanche of informative
main-stream articles, etc.,) just how much the Church has deceived them? Is
a 'real' culture war on the horizon? I am bewildered by the state of affairs
in this country right at the moment. That is why I am asking. I am fearful
of where all of the recent success of the religious right is leading us. I
don't like them, and I, personally, don't know what to do about them.
(I know I rambled a bit here, but I think I got my concern across.)
Greywolf
Ben Goren
Greywolf wrote:
> The problem is that the extremists within that faith have
> co-opted it for their own odious reasons.
Er...not exactly. The ``extremists'' have always been in charge;
read up on the early history of the Church, then what
happened when Rome adopted Christianity...the Dark Ages...American
Christian attitudes towards slavery and the native peoples...what
the Church did in WWII...Christian opposition to civil rights and
gender equality...and everything done in the name of the Church
today....
Here's a good starting point:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/winter.html
Anybody who thinks that Christianity, even on balance, is and has
been a force for good is either a dupe, completely ignorant of
history, or a sociopath. Yes, there are good people who happen to
be Christians, and there are good things done in the name of
Christianity...but we got the Volkswagen, modern rocketry, and
much of what we know about treating hypothermia from Hitler
and the Nazis (including, of course, Porsche, von Braun, and
Mengele). That doesn't make the Nazis any less evil.
> What ends up happening is that while your attacking a Pat
> Robertson-type 'thing' (I hesitate to use the word, 'Christian')
> you end up attacking your grandma in the process. It is akin to
> laying down an artillery barrage and ending up wounding innocent
> civilians. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
I know what you mean, but there's not a whole lot to be done about
it. Grandma made her bed, and she has to lie in it.
If it makes you feel better, there were a number of ``good''
Germans in Germany in the thirties and forties, including many
members of the Nazi party. They never would have done any of those
things themselves; they just went along because people in power
told them they had to, and because it was the thing to do. That
they chose to participate rather than risk their own lives and
fortunes for what was right, good, and just...well, they abandoned
their own goodness for evil, no matter how distasteful they
thought their position.
You need to read up on Stanley Milgram. He most emphatically
demonstrated how easy it is for ``good'' people to do the most
horrendous things just by having an authority figure tell them
they have to. And, you know what? In my book, that makes these
``good'' people the most evil of all.
Cheers,
b&
--
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
All but God can prove this sentence true.
Uncle Buck
wrote:
The trouble is that "grandma", in failing to also attack the "Pat
Robertson-type 'thing'", endorses it with her silence. "Grandma" is
as much a part of the problem as the "Pat Robertson-type 'thing'"
because "Grandma", being the "decent" person she is, should be just as
opposed to the "Pat Robertson-type 'thing'" as any normal human being,
and she isn't. She permits it to speak on her behalf, to deign to
speak _for_ her, by not speaking against it. So you're attacking
grandma, true, but it's well within grandma's power to make it not be
so. All she has to do - and it would be extremely _easy_ for her to
do - is to distance herself from the "Pat Robertson-type 'thing'" and
you would no longer be attacking her. As it is, "grandma" refuses to
do this, and has no one but herself to blame for the fact that attacks
against the "Pat Robertson-type 'thing'" also end up incidentally
hitting her in the process..
>So what do we atheists do? Do we throw the baby out with the bath water or
>what? I am clueless here. I wonder: Is there a day coming when the
>intellectuals of the world rise up together, and in force (ala the ID versus
>Evolution struggle), and begin dismantling the Judeo-Christian concept of
>deity piece-by-(vulgar) piece through the mass-media? In other words, are
>the Intellectuals going to break their relative silence and finally go on
>the offensive and show the 'faithful' (through an avalanche of informative
>main-stream articles, etc.,) just how much the Church has deceived them? Is
>a 'real' culture war on the horizon? I am bewildered by the state of affairs
>in this country right at the moment. That is why I am asking. I am fearful
>of where all of the recent success of the religious right is leading us. I
>don't like them, and I, personally, don't know what to do about them.
>
>(I know I rambled a bit here, but I think I got my concern across.)
You did. They want a war, and they are begging for it in every
possible way they know how. They won't get one. Especially in the
U.S., I've found, "intellectuals" as you call them are cowards. Plain
and simple.
--
L8r,
Uncle Buck
_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=
http://surrenderingtothefall.blogspot.com
~=O-o_~=O-o_~=O-o_~=O-o_~=O-o_~=O-o_~=O-o
"I absolutely detest it when people quote
themselves." - Me
Codeb...@bigsecret.com
Ben Goren wrote:
> http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/winter.html
Yes he existed and he is still existing for ever.
In a mind boogling display of wonders,he expalined
here in Atlanta why Arabs and Hebrews must learn
to live together in the land that he promised
to their father Abraham,
grounding His exegesis on the Torah
of Moses and it connection to Mohammad and Islam.
Prove that it is not so If you must believe that
he never existed.
Your opinion nolonger impress nobody
JTEM
"Greywolf" <grey...@cybrzn.com> wrote
> I have to admit it. I feel bad about attacking Christians
> in regards to their faith.
How do you find the time? Myself, I'm far too busy defending
myself, science & the constitution of the United States against
so-called "Christians" to ever dream of going on the offensive
against them.
Neil Kelsey
<Codeb...@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:1124572267.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ben Goren wrote:
>> http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/winter.html
>
> Yes he existed and he is still existing for ever.
> In a mind boogling display of wonders,
Mind boogling? Really?
>he expalined
> here in Atlanta why Arabs and Hebrews must learn
> to live together in the land that he promised
> to their father Abraham,
> grounding His exegesis on the Torah
> of Moses and it connection to Mohammad and Islam.
> Prove that it is not so If you must believe that
> he never existed.
> Your opinion nolonger impress nobody
"Your opinion nolonger impress nobody?" Your command of the English language
is impressing the hell out of me. So is your stupidity. It is you making
these wild claims, it is up to you to prove god/god jr. exists. We're
waiting.
ivan
"Greywolf" <grey...@cybrzn.com> wrote in message news:11gf27j...@corp.supernews.com...
> I have to admit it. I feel bad about attacking Christians in regards to
> their faith. I have this mental conception of Christians (who we've all met
> before) who are basically 'good' people. Their faith means very little to
> me, actually. (It hurts though, when you want
> to 'date' a girl who is a professed Christian, and who likes you a lot, but
> then suddenly won't give you the time-of-day once she learns you're a
> staunch atheist. What's with that?)
You don't understand chirstian faith, cause a little pure christian girl
won't put out for you? WOW! You atheists are even worse than some
priests.
> deity piece-by-(vulgar) piece through the mass-media? In other words, are
> the Intellectuals going to break their relative silence and finally go on
> the offensive and show the 'faithful' (through an avalanche of informative
> main-stream articles, etc.,) just how much the Church has deceived them?
Intelelctuals also decieve. In this world, 'intellectuals' are the worst scum
there is. Besides cops, secret agents, high priced lawyers, scum reporters
etc etc...and of course, paeophile priests.
Is
> a 'real' culture war on the horizon?
It has always been, led ONLY by intellectuals. Who think because they read
books, that they are someone people should 'trust'.
Devil dwells inside 'intellectual' circles. For centuries. And, it will be liek that
for some time. But not much more is left...
I am bewildered by the state of affairs
> in this country right at the moment.
Why are bewildered? You live in amerika? Well, that explains it all.
Doesn't it?
That is why I am asking. I am fearful
> of where all of the recent success of the religious right is leading us. I
> don't like them, and I, personally, don't know what to do about them.
Same goes for atheists, lefties, democrats, liberals... all of them are scum.
> (I know I rambled a bit here, but I think I got my concern across.)
I will pray for you man... hahahahahaha...
dgillesp
Sir, I beg your pardon! Will it be cap pistols or rubber daggers at 8
a.m. in the morning?
Denny :)
Plain
> and simple.
> --
> L8r,
> Uncle Buck
> _o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=
> http://surrenderingtothefall.blogspot.com
> ~=O-o_~=O-o_~=O-o_~=O-o_~=O-o_~=O-o_~=O-o
>
> "I absolutely detest it when people quote
> themselves." - Me
--
"There cannot be a God because, If there were one, I would
not believe that I were not He." - Friedrich Nietzsche
"My husband and I divorced over religious differences.
He thought he was God and I didn't." - Minny A. Spouse
Michael Gray
>
>Ben Goren wrote:
>> http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/winter.html
>
> Yes he existed and he is still existing for ever.
> In a mind boogling display of wonders,he expalined
> here in Atlanta why Arabs and Hebrews must learn
Wow!
Did you get any photos of him while he was in Atlanta?
Michael Gray
wrote:
>I have to admit it. I feel bad about attacking Christians in regards to
>their faith.
They are all as complicit in crimes from lying, through to rape and
genocide, by their silence and acquiecense to the current murderous
practices of the world's theistic governments.
Actively so if they voted them into power.
Each and every one of them is at least passively guilty of the crimes
committed in the name of their gods.
I get the feeling that they are partly responsible for some
considerable hardship to you personally.
Those who don't speak up on your behalf are equally guilty as those
who hurt you.
Protecting their delusions are more important to them than you are.
You should feel bad if you DON'T try and put a stop to this.
>I have this mental conception of Christians (who we've all met
>before) who are basically 'good' people.
That's their (bullshit) "advertising" technique.
"Christ washes whiter than white!"
coupled with an unearned guilt trip.
They have been honing the lie that they all essentially "good people"
for nearly 2000 years now.
No wonder it works so well.
>Their faith means very little to
>me, actually. (It hurts though, when you want
>to 'date' a girl who is a professed Christian, and who likes you a lot, but
>then suddenly won't give you the time-of-day once she learns you're a
>staunch atheist. What's with that?)
Feel good that you'll have one less idiotically delusional lunatic in
your life.
>I personally feel that if a person is
>open-minded enough, and still chooses to believe in deity, that's perfectly
>fine. (One of my favorite things to say to a potential love-interest is,
>'Hell, I don't care if you believe that there's cows grazing on the moon.
>I'd think you're crazy. But if that's your belief, I'd have to live with it.
>I would just expect you to respect my disbelief, as well. [Well now you know
>why I have been single for the past 2000 years!]) Anyway, I make a mental
>distinction between people who I feel are 'good' Christians' who basically
>want to be left alone with their faith, and who feel that their faith is
>personal, and no one else's business, and the 'others.' The 'good'
>Christians have no interest in imposing their belief-system upon *anyone*
>else (outside the immediate family). These Christians are basically
>harmless - well at least to me, they are. Then we have the deity of the
>professional theists whose God they cannot adequately define but believe in
>strongly, nevertheless.I feel bad going around attacking them.
>
>The problem is that the extremists within that faith have co-opted it for
>their own odious reasons. What ends up happening is that while your
>attacking a Pat Robertson-type 'thing' (I hesitate to use the word,
>'Christian') you end up attacking your grandma in the process. It is akin to
>laying down an artillery barrage and ending up wounding innocent civilians.
>It leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
By their very silence, these "good" Xtians are providing tacit support
for the predatory monsters, such as the Pat Robertsons, the Fallwells
and so-on.
For every high profile dangerous hypocrite like that, their are many
more low-profile predators out there in Christ-land.
The husband who cheats on and beats his wife. The pedophile priest.
The local politician using Jeebers to get him elected.
And so-on.
>So what do we atheists do? Do we throw the baby out with the bath water or
>what? I am clueless here. I wonder: Is there a day coming when the
>intellectuals of the world rise up together, and in force (ala the ID versus
>Evolution struggle), and begin dismantling the Judeo-Christian concept of
>deity piece-by-(vulgar) piece through the mass-media? In other words, are
>the Intellectuals going to break their relative silence and finally go on
>the offensive and show the 'faithful' (through an avalanche of informative
>main-stream articles, etc.,) just how much the Church has deceived them?
There is no such cohesive movement.
For that to happen, it will take each and every one of us to
independently do it.
It is your choice to act or not act.
Don't expect to get a knock on your door and be handed an invitation
to join a "thinking person's" revolution, 'coz it aint gunna happen.
>Is a 'real' culture war on the horizon? I am bewildered by the state of affairs
>in this country right at the moment. That is why I am asking. I am fearful
>of where all of the recent success of the religious right is leading us. I
>don't like them, and I, personally, don't know what to do about them.
I can't tell you what to do.
No-one can.
You need to work that out for yourself.
But if you don't start from a base of absolute honesty, first to
yourself, and then to everyone you deal with, you may as well not
begin anything.
David H.
"Neil Kelsey" <neil_...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:LvNNe.197972$HI.29866@edtnps84...
>
> <Codeb...@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
> news:1124572267.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Ben Goren wrote:
>>> http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/winter.html
>>
>> Yes he existed and he is still existing for ever.
>> In a mind boogling display of wonders,
>
> Mind boogling? Really?
>
I imagine it refers to stifling thought by implanting boogers into the
mind.
Yes, that is what jesus does.
David H.
aa #2217
Apostate
And, as it has always had to be, we'll *think* for you.
Huh-huh; huh-huh. Gehilk.
--
/Apostate
alt.atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by Lani_girl, first post; Billions Served!
I doubt, therefore I might be.
e-mail to lower-case only
Apostate
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 07:09:50 +0930, Michael Gray <fle...@newsguy.spam.com> tells that:
>On 20 Aug 2005 14:11:07 -0700, Codeb...@bigsecret.com wrote:
>
>>
>>Ben Goren wrote:
>>> http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/winter.html
>>
>> Yes he existed and he is still existing for ever.
>> In a mind boogling display of wonders,he expalined
>> here in Atlanta why Arabs and Hebrews must learn
Yeah! it really does "boogle" the mind.
Witness one of the most boogled minds on Usenet.
DanielSan
> "Greywolf" <grey...@cybrzn.com> wrote in message news:11gf27j...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>I have to admit it. I feel bad about attacking Christians in regards to
>>their faith. I have this mental conception of Christians (who we've all met
>>before) who are basically 'good' people. Their faith means very little to
>>me, actually. (It hurts though, when you want
>>to 'date' a girl who is a professed Christian, and who likes you a lot, but
>>then suddenly won't give you the time-of-day once she learns you're a
>>staunch atheist. What's with that?)
>
>
>
> You don't understand chirstian faith, cause a little pure christian girl
> won't put out for you? WOW! You atheists are even worse than some
> priests.
Greywolf is a child molestor now?
>
>
>>deity piece-by-(vulgar) piece through the mass-media? In other words, are
>>the Intellectuals going to break their relative silence and finally go on
>>the offensive and show the 'faithful' (through an avalanche of informative
>>main-stream articles, etc.,) just how much the Church has deceived them?
>
>
> Intelelctuals also decieve. In this world, 'intellectuals' are the worst scum
> there is. Besides cops, secret agents, high priced lawyers, scum reporters
> etc etc...and of course, paeophile priests.
Why are they "the worst scum there is?"
>
> Is
>
>>a 'real' culture war on the horizon?
>
>
> It has always been, led ONLY by intellectuals. Who think because they read
> books, that they are someone people should 'trust'.
Eh? So, you're angry at intellectuals now because...what, they wouldn't
put out for you? :-)
>
> Devil dwells inside 'intellectual' circles. For centuries. And, it will be liek that
> for some time. But not much more is left...
Yes, we know how some religious people don't want you to use the mind
that they say that God gave you.
>
> I am bewildered by the state of affairs
>
>>in this country right at the moment.
>
>
> Why are bewildered? You live in amerika?
You misspelled "America."
> Well, that explains it all.
> Doesn't it?
No, it doesn't.
>
> That is why I am asking. I am fearful
>
>>of where all of the recent success of the religious right is leading us. I
>>don't like them, and I, personally, don't know what to do about them.
>
>
> Same goes for atheists, lefties, democrats, liberals... all of them are scum.
Why are they scum?
>
>
>>(I know I rambled a bit here, but I think I got my concern across.)
>
>
> I will pray for you man... hahahahahaha...
Placing your palms together and talking to the ceiling won't help.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
aminorf...@yahoo.ca
DanielSan wrote:
> ivan wrote:
> > "Greywolf" <grey...@cybrzn.com> wrote in message news:11gf27j...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> >>I have to admit it. I feel bad about attacking Christians in regards to
[various long commentaries...]
> Placing your palms together and talking to the ceiling won't help.
Don't feel bad. Just think of it as people speaking a different
language. So some people use 'God' to describe what you call by a bunch
of different names. I think the frustration comes from thinking that
we're all talking 'English' to each other, as if we all agree on what
the synonyms are for 'leftist' or 'extremist' or whatever. Or the
frustration comes from watching people vote in a nutbar to the
Whitehouse... but that's another issue.
Darwin or no Darwin, we're still a bunch of creatures trying to
translate each other's warblings. And I don't see the point of blaming
Grandma for the Holocaust or the Crusades or whatever it was. Grandma
is under no obligation in my book to speak out against religious
fanatics. She should be baking cakes or skydiving or whatever she
prefers to do in her spare time.
T
Greywolf
"ivan" <iva...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:de882f$fq9$1...@news1.xnet.hr...
>
> "Greywolf" <grey...@cybrzn.com> wrote in message
> news:11gf27j...@corp.supernews.com...
>> I have to admit it. I feel bad about attacking Christians in regards to
>> their faith. I have this mental conception of Christians (who we've all
>> met
>> before) who are basically 'good' people. Their faith means very little to
>> me, actually. (It hurts though, when you want
>> to 'date' a girl who is a professed Christian, and who likes you a lot,
>> but
>> then suddenly won't give you the time-of-day once she learns you're a
>> staunch atheist. What's with that?)
>
>
> You don't understand chirstian faith, cause a little pure christian girl
> won't put out for you? WOW! You atheists are even worse than some
> priests.
>
This is the only part of this message I am going to address. I should not
have
put the word 'date' in quotation. It *does* look a little tawdry when I look
at
now. But what you think I meant, was *not* what I had in mind. The emphasis
on 'date' was meant to convey the act of 'courting.' I'm not into 'one
night stands'.
That's for juveniles (and real "studs,"eh?). I passed that point a long time
ago. But
I must add that I found your remarks rather salacious. '...pure little
christian girl won't
put out for you? Hmmm.
Greywolf
R. Pierce Butler
news:11gf27j...@corp.supernews.com:
> I have to admit it. I feel bad about attacking Christians in regards to
> their faith. I have this mental conception of Christians (who we've all
> met before) who are basically 'good' people. Their faith means very
> little to me, actually. (
Actually their faith means very little to them. Those willingly choose to
ignore the teachings for the most part and continue on their merry way.
rj
nobody
[...]
>So what do we atheists do? Do we throw the baby out with the bath water or
>what? I am clueless here. I wonder: Is there a day coming when the
>intellectuals of the world rise up together, and in force (ala the ID versus
[...]
There's your problem, if, by virtue of being an atheist, you believe
you are an intellectual and thus superior to the masses. If that be
the case, getting off your high horse and recognizing your place in
society will go a long way towards integration and contentness.
Michael Gray
And what is *your* place in society, Mr. nobody at nowhere?
Oh, I just realised that your name tells everyone.
Sorry to bother you Mr. nobody.
johac
"Greywolf" <grey...@cybrzn.com> wrote:
> I have to admit it. I feel bad about attacking Christians in regards to
> their faith. I have this mental conception of Christians (who we've all met
> before) who are basically 'good' people. Their faith means very little to
> me, actually. (It hurts though, when you want
> to 'date' a girl who is a professed Christian, and who likes you a lot, but
> then suddenly won't give you the time-of-day once she learns you're a
> staunch atheist. What's with that?) I personally feel that if a person is
> open-minded enough, and still chooses to believe in deity, that's perfectly
> fine. (One of my favorite things to say to a potential love-interest is,
> 'Hell, I don't care if you believe that there's cows grazing on the moon.
> I'd think you're crazy. But if that's your belief, I'd have to live with it.
> I would just expect you to respect my disbelief, as well. [Well now you know
> why I have been single for the past 2000 years!]) Anyway, I make a mental
> distinction between people who I feel are 'good' Christians' who basically
> want to be left alone with their faith, and who feel that their faith is
> personal, and no one else's business, and the 'others.' The 'good'
> Christians have no interest in imposing their belief-system upon *anyone*
> else (outside the immediate family). These Christians are basically
> harmless - well at least to me, they are. Then we have the deity of the
> professional theists whose God they cannot adequately define but believe in
> strongly, nevertheless.I feel bad going around attacking them.
Most Christians don't bother me. I get along with them just fine. It's
only the ones who try to get me to participate in their idiocy who annoy
me and I consider 'fair game'.
>
> The problem is that the extremists within that faith have co-opted it for
> their own odious reasons. What ends up happening is that while your
> attacking a Pat Robertson-type 'thing' (I hesitate to use the word,
> 'Christian') you end up attacking your grandma in the process. It is akin to
> laying down an artillery barrage and ending up wounding innocent civilians.
> It leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
I think that you might find that many xtians would agree with you that
Robertson, Falwell, and their ilk are jerks and doing their own religion
more harm than good.
>
> So what do we atheists do? Do we throw the baby out with the bath water or
> what? I am clueless here. I wonder: Is there a day coming when the
> intellectuals of the world rise up together, and in force (ala the ID versus
> Evolution struggle), and begin dismantling the Judeo-Christian concept of
> deity piece-by-(vulgar) piece through the mass-media? In other words, are
> the Intellectuals going to break their relative silence and finally go on
> the offensive and show the 'faithful' (through an avalanche of informative
> main-stream articles, etc.,) just how much the Church has deceived them? Is
> a 'real' culture war on the horizon? I am bewildered by the state of affairs
> in this country right at the moment. That is why I am asking. I am fearful
> of where all of the recent success of the religious right is leading us. I
> don't like them, and I, personally, don't know what to do about them.
>
> (I know I rambled a bit here, but I think I got my concern across.)
I think that you touched on the solution. Education is the key. The more
that the superstitious know about the real world, the smaller the gaps
become in which they can hide their gods.
>
> Greywolf
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Del
> On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 14:47:54 -0500, "Greywolf" <grey...@cybrzn.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I have to admit it. I feel bad about attacking Christians in regards to
> >their faith. I have this mental conception of Christians (who we've all me t
> >before) who are basically 'good' people. Their faith means very little to
> >me, actually. (It hurts though, when you want
> >to 'date' a girl who is a professed Christian, and who likes you a lot, but
> >staunch atheist. What's with that?) I personally feel that if a person is
> >open-minded enough, and still chooses to believe in deity, that's perfectly
> >'Hell, I don't care if you believe that there's cows grazing on the moon.
> >I'd think you're crazy. But if that's your belief, I'd have to live with it.
> >I would just expect you to respect my disbelief, as well. [Well now you know
> >distinction between people who I feel are 'good' Christians' who basically
> >want to be left alone with their faith, and who feel that their faith is
> >Christians have no interest in imposing their belief-system upon *anyone*
> >else (outside the immediate family). These Christians are basically
> >harmless - well at least to me, they are. Then we have the deity of the
> >professional theists whose God they cannot adequately define but believe in
> >strongly, nevertheless.I feel bad going around attacking them.
> >
> >The problem is that the extremists within that faith have co-opted it for
> >their own odious reasons. What ends up happening is that while your
> >attacking a Pat Robertson-type 'thing' (I hesitate to use the word,
> >'Christian') you end up attacking your grandma in the process. It is akin to
> >It leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
>
> The trouble is that "grandma", in failing to also attack the "Pat
> Robertson-type 'thing'", endorses it with her silence.
So can we assume that anything you don't condemn, you support?
i
Del
Greywolf wrote:
> I have to admit it. I feel bad about attacking Christians in regards to
> their faith.
You must be sorry you did after the responses you've
gotten so far. But I think you are on to something.
> I have this mental conception of Christians (who we've all met
> before) who are basically 'good' people. Their faith means very little to
> me, a ctually. (It hurts though, when you want
> to 'date' a girl who is a professed Christian, and who likes you a lot, but
> then suddenly won't give you the time-of-day once she learns you're a
> staunch atheist. What's with that?) I personally feel that i f a person is
> open-minded enough, and still chooses to believe in deity, that's perfectly
> fine.
Isn't it amazing that there are so many here who would
disagree with you? Of course it is perfectly fine. Atheists
should be live and let live. We don't have anything to sell.
And if the religious leave us alone, then what is the big
deal? Only evangelist atheists feel differently. There just is
a lot of them on a.a.
(One of my favorite things to say to a potential love-interest is,
> 'Hell, I don't care if you believe that there's cows grazing on the moon.
> I'd th ink you're crazy. But if that's your belief, I'd have to live with it.
> I would just expect you to respect my disbelief, as well. [Well now you know
> why I have been single for the past 2000 years!])
Really. If you can't give their belief enough respect
not to insult it, you're better off not dating theists, it
seems to me. Even if you didn't say this specific thing,
any contempt you feel wouldn't be hidden for long.
Anyway, I make a mental
> distinction between people who I feel are 'good' Christians' who basically
> want to be left alone with their faith, and who feel that their faith is
> personal, and no one else's business, and the 'others.' The 'good'
> Christians have no interest in imposing their belief-sy stem upon *anyone*
> else (outside the immediate family). These Christians are basically
> harmless - well at least to me, they are.
Exactly.
Then we have the deity of the
> professional theists whose God they cannot adequately define but believe in
> strongly, nevertheless.I feel bad going around attacking them.
Don't attack them. Defend yourself from attack. If
theists come to a.a. specifically to attack atheists
then they are fair game. If they threaten your freedom
by wanting to legislate their religion and use the
police power of the state to impose it on you, attack
them: make them justify their assumptions upon
which they rationalize such laws.
>
> The problem is that the extremists within that faith have co-opted it for
> their own odious reasons. What ends up happening is that while your
> attacking a Pat Robertson-type 'thing' (I hesit ate to use the word,
> 'Christian') you end up attacking your grandma in the process.
How about just being fair? If you are going to
attack, be equal opportunity in your subjects.
It is akin to
> laying down an artillery barrage and ending up wounding innocent civilians.
> It leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
You won't hit too many innocents in a.a.--as long as you are careful
not to join the threads started by fundy atheists to troll theists
here.
>
> So what do we atheists do? Do we throw the baby out with the bath water or
> what?
What do you think? Does the end justify the means? Is
attacking theists more than just recreation to you? Do
you think people are persuaded by being attacked (if
persuasion is any kind of goal for you)?
> I am clueless here. I wonder: Is there a day coming when the
> intellectuals of the world rise up together, and in force (ala the ID versus
> Evolution struggle), and begin dismantling the Judeo-Christian concept of
> deity piece-by-(vulgar) piece through the mass-media?
I think it isn't the intellectuals of the world who are
positive than they are right. It is fundies who are
positive--including fundy atheists.
In other words, are
> the Intellectuals going to break their relative silence and finally go on
> the offensive and show the 'faithful' (through an avalanche of informative
> main-stream articles, etc.,) just how much the Church has deceived them?
This _is_ a bit condescending. Science doesn't pretend to
know things for certain, why should we?
Is
> a 'real' culture war on the horizon? I am bewildered by the state of affairs
> in this country right at the moment. That is why I am asking.
Ebb and flow, yin and yang. Extremists come and go.
I am fearful
> of where all of the recent success of the religious right is leading us.
Hopefully to a backlash like in the past.
I
> don't like them, and I, personally, don't know what to do about them.
Live and let live and defend yourself when necessary.
That's my opinion.
-
nobody
>On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 04:55:28 GMT, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>"Greywolf" <grey...@cybrzn.com> wrote:
>>[...]
>>>So what do we atheists do? Do we throw the baby out with the bath water or
>>>what? I am clueless here. I wonder: Is there a day coming when the
>>>intellectuals of the world rise up together, and in force (ala the ID versus
>>[...]
>>There's your problem, if, by virtue of being an atheist, you believe
>>you are an intellectual and thus superior to the masses. If that be
>>the case, getting off your high horse and recognizing your place in
>>society will go a long way towards integration and contentness.
>And what is *your* place in society, Mr. nobody at nowhere?
I have no compaints about my place. Thanks for your concern.
>Oh, I just realised that your name tells everyone.
You must have extraordinary powers then, for I cannot, for the life of
me, by just looking at the words "Michael Gray" (if that is your real
name), tell your place in society.
>Sorry to bother you Mr. nobody.
No worries. Just try to come up with something with actual content
next time. You can do it if you try hard enough.
ivan
"Greywolf" <grey...@cybrzn.com> wrote in message news:11gfmdd...@corp.supernews.com...
I rest my case.
ivan
"Apostate" <apostate.in...@yeehaw.org> wrote in message
news:6rffg1hers1iad6tp...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 23:36:48 +0200, "ivan" <iva...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And, as it has always had to be, we'll *think* for you.
>
> Huh-huh; huh-huh. Gehilk.
You can only think for yourself, and in fact that is what
you really must do.
ivan
"DanielSan" <danie...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message news:JhQNe.6321$_f.5465@trnddc03...
> ivan wrote:
> > "Greywolf" <grey...@cybrzn.com> wrote in message
news:11gf27j...@corp.supernews.com...
> Greywolf is a child molestor now?
I didn't say that.
> > Intelelctuals also decieve. In this world, 'intellectuals' are the worst scum
> > there is. Besides cops, secret agents, high priced lawyers, scum reporters
> > etc etc...and of course, paeophile priests.
>
> Why are they "the worst scum there is?"
Because they present themselves and their professions liek it was
something worth while. But, as you look around yourself... journalists
claim that their profession is noble, and that 'truth' is their guiding light.
Hm... sure. Lawayers think of themselves that they are also doing a
'divine' job, and that they should get respecet wherever they show up.
Secret agents? I don't need to emphasise the brain washing within those
folks. Errm... cops? Hahahahaha... don't make me laugh. The only reason
for the existance of the police is to stop PEOPLE of rioting, and demanding
changes, for good, of course. And yes, cops rarely STOP the crime, before
it happens, usually they are on the scene AFTER the crime has been commited.
Whow!... and yes, intellectuals. Wow, same as 'atrists', they think that THEY are
'the shit'. That beacuse of their 'knowledge' other people should unquestionably
believe what they say. I say, in a world liek this, those who have the most of
knowledge should be first to blame for this world we are now, 2005, living in.
What, I'm going to blame some hungry poor child from Africa? Am I to blame those
awful terrorists? Terrorists are PRODUCT of this system, and of this 'civilized'
world, in which both you and I live in. Should I blame... I dunno, poor people?
Criminals? Women? Jews? Nazis? No man... THOSE ones who HAVE power
are the ones to be blamed. And they know it. But no. A press conference and everything
is being sorted out. Democrats speak against republicans, republicans speak against
democrats, jews speak against christians, christians speak against jews, blacks speak
against whites, whites speak against blacks... tories speak against conservatists, etc etc...
What one can plainly see is that all these 'political' options are just trying
to slander the other party, and fooling the 'people' into voting. And among those
'politicans' there are many, many, many intellectuals, and educated people.
And not only that, many, many, many educated people WORK for politicans.
So, I ask you, what do we do? Wait for Jesus to come and die for us again?
Wait for aliens to come and save us? Man, GOD is surely not going to help.
I wouldn't. Try watching the movie called 'God Has A Rap Sheet'. You'll get
the picture. If man is free, than man should take responsibilites for that freedom
that has been 'given' to him. But no... people want POWER, good life, nice car...
and it would be easy if it was JUST that. No. When they get all those things, then
they suddenly REMEMBER that there is one thing they need most; recognition,
sympathy, approval from the people that surround them. And as far as I am concerned,
we, little people should never ever give them that. You wanna rule the system? You
wanna be the president? Let's see what can you do. Oh, you are a scumbag? Well well...
But, to make a long story short... :)
> Yes, we know how some religious people don't want you to use the mind
> that they say that God gave you.
Mind? It depends man. I see people USING their minds for their own
profits, for themselves. And you DO NOT need 'god' to tell you; that is wrong.
And for things to be worse; THAT will be the death of us all. Of all human kind.
Of all the civilizations. EVERY single one fell down. EVERY single one. WHY?
Cause you have 'educated people' swindling poor people and cheating them.
And RICH people think they are GODS! Lemme se them rich folks try and fly
for exaple, with their own to hands! Or, stop a tornado! Volcano! Tsunami!
Hahahaha... poor, misguided, lied to, cheated on people of today.
> You misspelled "America."
Sorry. I meant amerikkka.
> No, it doesn't.
Why?
> Why are they scum?
Cause they believe in lies. That's why.
> Placing your palms together and talking to the ceiling won't help.
Yeah, but using my MIND for earning large sums of money sure will, right?
Apostate
>Atheists
> should be live and let live. We don't have anything to sell.
> And if the religious leave us alone, then what is the big
>deal? Only evangelist atheists feel differently. There just is
> a lot of them on a.a.
To whom do this lot evangelize?
Uncle Buck
<apostate.in...@yeehaw.org> wrote:
>On 21 Aug 2005 06:56:40 -0700, "Del" <jfa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>Atheists
>> should be live and let live. We don't have anything to sell.
>> And if the religious leave us alone, then what is the big
>>deal? Only evangelist atheists feel differently. There just is
>> a lot of them on a.a.
>
> To whom do this lot evangelize?
I might also ask another one:
Whom do the religious leave alone?
mha...@gmail.com
Hahaha! I've wondered this since I was made to say the pledge of
allegiance in elementary school.
-Mike
Del
Apostate wrote:
> On 21 Aug 2005 06:56:40 -0700, "Del" <jfa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Atheists
> > should be live and let live. We don't have anything to sell.
> > And if the religious leave us alone, then what is the big
> > a lot of them on a.a.
>
> To whom do this lot evangelize?
I see them cross posting to religious groups, or continue
with those crossposts. When I have pointed out that anti-theist
posts were x-posted from a.a. and not the reverse, they don't
really care. Chris Lee for example.
>
Del
johac wrote:
> In article <11gf27j...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Greywolf" <grey...@cybrzn.com> wrote:
>
> > I have to admit it. I feel bad about attacking Christians in regards to
> > before) who are basically 'good' people. Their faith means very little to
> > me, actually. (It hurts though, when you want
> > to 'date' a girl who is a professed Christian, and who likes you a lot, but
> > staunch atheist. What's with that?) I personally feel that if a person is
> > open-minded enough, and still chooses to believe in deity, that's perfectly
> > 'Hell, I don't care if you believe that there's cows grazing on the moon.
> > I'd think you're crazy. But if that's your belief, I'd have to live with it.
> > I would just expect you to respect my disbelief, as well. [Well now you know
> > why I have been single for the past 2000 years!]) Anyway, I make a mental
> > distinction between people who I feel are 'good' Christians' who basically
> > want to be left alone with their faith, and who feel that their faith is
> > personal, and no one else's business, and the 'others.' The 'good'
> > Christians have no interest in imposing their belief-system upon *anyone*
> > else (outside the immediate family). These Christians are basically
> > harmless - well at least to me, they are. Then we have the deity of the
> > professional theists whose God they cannot adequately define but believe in
> > strongly, nevertheless.I feel bad going around attacking them.
>
> Most Christians don't bother me. I get along with them just fine. It's
> only the ones who try to get me to participate in their idiocy who annoy
> me and I consider 'fair game'.
Bingo.
>
Apostate
Horseshit.
Nearly all of the time, crossposts across religious groups and a.a. are rocketed into
a.a. from the religious group(s); only a handful of a.a. posters like to 'just see what
the religious groups will think of this,' except on occasions when they are actually
asking for a religious pov on some point. As for "continuing" a crosspost, each
and every poster who keeps both (all) ng's in the headers "continues" the
x-post. Atheist "continuing" is not a distinct phenomenon from xian "continuing".
Anyone who's fed up with a crossposted thread is free to send their own contributions
to their 'home base' ng alone, and/or to kill the whole thread in their newsreader.
For the sake of honesty (and the future of your allegedly immortal soul) you ought to
sit down and study a sample of twenty threads in each group, in the Google archives,
from each of the last several months, to demonstrate by a patient examination of the
headers *where* x-posting usually originates. You'd be mortified, and forced to
apologize for your comments.
DanielSan
> "DanielSan" <danie...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message news:JhQNe.6321$_f.5465@trnddc03...
>
>>ivan wrote:
>>
>>>"Greywolf" <grey...@cybrzn.com> wrote in message
>
> news:11gf27j...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
>>Greywolf is a child molestor now?
>
>
> I didn't say that.
Yes, you didn't. You said that we are *WORSE* than child molestors.
Saith you: "You atheists are even worse than some priests."
>
>
>>>Intelelctuals also decieve. In this world, 'intellectuals' are the worst scum
>>>there is. Besides cops, secret agents, high priced lawyers, scum reporters
>>>etc etc...and of course, paeophile priests.
>>
>>Why are they "the worst scum there is?"
>
>
What follows is a rant, so I'm going to try to rebut each topic.
> Because they present themselves and their professions liek it was
> something worth while.
And they aren't?
> But, as you look around yourself... journalists
> claim that their profession is noble, and that 'truth' is their guiding light.
Yes.
> Hm... sure.
Yes, sure.
> Lawayers think of themselves that they are also doing a
> 'divine' job, and that they should get respecet wherever they show up.
Everyone hates lawyers, until they need one.
> Secret agents? I don't need to emphasise the brain washing within those
> folks.
What brainwashing?
> Errm... cops? Hahahahaha... don't make me laugh.
What do you have against law enforcement?
> The only reason
> for the existance of the police is to stop PEOPLE of rioting, and demanding
> changes, for good, of course.
Wrong. They are there to protect citizens.
> And yes, cops rarely STOP the crime, before
> it happens,
Possibly because a crime isn't a crime until it happens. No one is psychic.
> usually they are on the scene AFTER the crime has been commited.
Of course! That is the definition of a crime. A crime is an act that
is committed that is in violation of the law. Until the act is
committed, there is no crime.
> Whow!... and yes, intellectuals. Wow, same as 'atrists',
...artists?...
> they think that THEY are
> 'the shit'. That beacuse of their 'knowledge' other people should unquestionably
> believe what they say.
Like you?
> I say, in a world liek this, those who have the most of
> knowledge should be first to blame for this world we are now, 2005, living in.
Whereas you are the first to blame "intellectuals" for the world we are
in now?
> What, I'm going to blame some hungry poor child from Africa?
I don't know. Are you?
> Am I to blame those
> awful terrorists? Terrorists are PRODUCT of this system, and of this 'civilized'
> world, in which both you and I live in. Should I blame... I dunno, poor people?
> Criminals? Women? Jews? Nazis? No man... THOSE ones who HAVE power
> are the ones to be blamed.
Sure. Because you scapegoat.
> And they know it. But no. A press conference and everything
> is being sorted out. Democrats speak against republicans, republicans speak against
> democrats, jews speak against christians, christians speak against jews, blacks speak
> against whites, whites speak against blacks... tories speak against conservatists, etc etc...
You obviously dislike the world you live in. What are you going to do
about it? Why, you speak against intellectuals. Do you not see the
hypocrisy in what you're doing?
>
> What one can plainly see is that all these 'political' options are just trying
> to slander the other party, and fooling the 'people' into voting. And among those
> 'politicans' there are many, many, many intellectuals, and educated people.
> And not only that, many, many, many educated people WORK for politicans.
>
> So, I ask you, what do we do? Wait for Jesus to come and die for us again?
Or you could be the change you want to see happen. First, stop speaking
against intellectuals because you are only contributing to the problem
that you see in the world.
> Wait for aliens to come and save us? Man, GOD is surely not going to help.
> I wouldn't. Try watching the movie called 'God Has A Rap Sheet'. You'll get
> the picture.
No need.
> If man is free, than man should take responsibilites for that freedom
> that has been 'given' to him. But no...
I'm going to stop the rant right here. You are speaking out against
that which you are doing. You, my dear sir, are a hypocrite of the
highest order.
Greywolf
saying she
'likes' you, she will, nevertheless, have nothing to do with you simply
because 'you'
are an atheist. I guess if I was a 'Christian' who beat women up and cheated
on them
left and right, I'd be considered a 'catch,' eh?
Greywolf
Greywolf
"nobody" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:q32gg15ojflng8fqi...@4ax.com...
stretch of
the imagination. I am, however, knowledgeable enough, and articulate enough
to
cut religious right imbeciles to pieces (theologically speaking, of course).
Now tell
me that the 'masses' you refer to are serious students of the bible. Hah!
The vast
majority of Christians have *never* even read the bible, let alone
understood half
of what they *did* read. Most Christians are flying 'blind.' They just
accept the
drivel the Church has spoon-fed them since early on because they feel
compelled
to do so. Not because they seriously believe half the crap they've been
forced-fed.
And if you feel I sitting on some sort of 'high horse,' it may be it's
because I am very
happy with the fact that I *know* that what the Church has dished out is
plain ole'
hooey. And I ain't a eatin' it anymore. I feel sorry for the people that do.
But that
aside, they're a rising menace to this country. Their ignorance of what many
of the
finest theologians and bible commentators 'really' have to say about the
bible is
frightening, and downright dangerous.It's fine to believe in God and keep it
to yourself, in my
book. It's another thing to bring that horse manure into the classroom and
into the
Federal building. It doesn't belong in either place. It only manages to
stink each place up.
And yes, I am being very disrespectful right now. But religionists have
shown utter
contempt for atheists since day one. And you can bet your bottom dollar that
the
next Christian you meet to discuss atheists with, will be clueless as to
what we're really all
about. And why's that? Because a Christian told them what we are all about,
not an atheist.
That's why.
Greywolf
lysd...@sbcglobal.net
> Ben Goren wrote:
> > http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/winter.html
>
> Yes he existed and he is still existing for ever.
> In a mind boogling display of wonders,he expalined
> here in Atlanta why Arabs and Hebrews must learn
> to their father Abraham,
> grounding His exegesis on the Torah
> of Moses and it connection to Mohammad and Islam.
> Prove that it is not so If you must believe that
> he never existed.
> Your opinion nolonger impress nobody
You're a Georgian? That explains you. Codebreaker, read this and shut
up:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/8cfaebbb2c3ac4bd/917b204b034092d8?lnk=st&rnum=8#917b204b034092d8.
-Aut
nobody
>"nobody" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote
>> "Greywolf" <grey...@cybrzn.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>>>So what do we atheists do? Do we throw the baby out with the bath water or
>>>what? I am clueless here. I wonder: Is there a day coming when the
>>>intellectuals of the world rise up together, and in force (ala the ID
>>>versus
>> [...]
>> There's your problem, if, by virtue of being an atheist, you believe
>> you are an intellectual and thus superior to the masses. If that be
>> the case, getting off your high horse and recognizing your place in
>> society will go a long way towards integration and contentness.
[...]
>about. And why's that? Because a Christian told them what we are all about,
>not an atheist.
>That's why.
You need to take a deep breath, calm down, take your medication, drink
some tea, whatever. World in general and religion in particular is
much more complicated than your juvenile model. Religion has a point
and place, or else it wouldn't have evolved. Being an atheist doesn't
preclude one from being a realist or a well adjusted individual who
can exist in a world with which he may not agree hundered percent all
the time.
ivan
"DanielSan" <danie...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message news:nk7Oe.6882$M3.4102@trnddc05...
> > I didn't say that.
>
> Yes, you didn't. You said that we are *WORSE* than child molestors.
> Saith you: "You atheists are even worse than some priests."
You git, not all priests are child molesters. You really are a git.
> >>Why are they "the worst scum there is?"
> >
> >
>
> What follows is a rant, so I'm going to try to rebut each topic.
Rebut.
> > Because they present themselves and their professions liek it was
> > something worth while.
>
> And they aren't?
No they aren't. If they were, the world would be even MORE
magnificent than it already is. And we all know, and see how
'magnificent' it is, right, git?
> > But, as you look around yourself... journalists
> > claim that their profession is noble, and that 'truth' is their guiding light.
>
> Yes.
You are a plonker, aren't you?
> > Hm... sure.
>
> Yes, sure.
Doubtful.
> > Lawayers think of themselves that they are also doing a
> > 'divine' job, and that they should get respecet wherever they show up.
>
> Everyone hates lawyers, until they need one.
Yeees, git, cause it is a nice 'invention'. I bet that centuries ago, rich
fucks decided 'let's wrtie some laws. we'll tell poor idiots that it is for
a common good. but in fact, we will be just protecting our backs. and
yes, we would need someone to push these laws... yes, let's have lawyers
and judges. yeeees... grin grin grin'.
If you believe in anything different than that, you really, but reallt are a git.
> > Secret agents? I don't need to emphasise the brain washing within those
> > folks.
>
> What brainwashing?
Plonker.
> > Errm... cops? Hahahahaha... don't make me laugh.
>
> What do you have against law enforcement?
Well, they have people liek you out on the streets. Innit obvious?
> > The only reason
> > for the existance of the police is to stop PEOPLE of rioting, and demanding
> > changes, for good, of course.
>
> Wrong. They are there to protect citizens.
You lie. Not only a git, but a liar. Nice, Daniel. Fell on ye head
while you were little?
> > And yes, cops rarely STOP the crime, before
> > it happens,
>
> Possibly because a crime isn't a crime until it happens. No one is psychic.
Yeah... 'Daniel'... you need a brain medicine. I recommend AIR! That
would suit you just fine.
> > usually they are on the scene AFTER the crime has been commited.
>
> Of course! That is the definition of a crime. A crime is an act that
> is committed that is in violation of the law. Until the act is
> committed, there is no crime.
Oh God... you really are dim.
> > Whow!... and yes, intellectuals. Wow, same as 'atrists',
>
> ...artists?...
No, git, atrists. Jeez...
> > they think that THEY are
> > 'the shit'. That beacuse of their 'knowledge' other people should unquestionably
> > believe what they say.
>
> Like you?
Not liek me. Liek you.
> > I say, in a world liek this, those who have the most of
> > knowledge should be first to blame for this world we are now, 2005, living in.
>
> Whereas you are the first to blame "intellectuals" for the world we are
> in now?
First? No, git, not the first. One of many.
> > What, I'm going to blame some hungry poor child from Africa?
>
> I don't know. Are you?
Well, I sure as hell know YOU ain't blaming cops or lawyers.
Or intellectuals. Hence; you just might be one of them. Or someone
in your family is.
> > Am I to blame those
> > awful terrorists? Terrorists are PRODUCT of this system, and of this 'civilized'
> > world, in which both you and I live in. Should I blame... I dunno, poor people?
> > Criminals? Women? Jews? Nazis? No man... THOSE ones who HAVE power
> > are the ones to be blamed.
>
> Sure. Because you scapegoat.
Scapegoat? Of course I 'scapegoat'. And what a better scapegoat than some
rich bastards and their vassals?
> > And they know it. But no. A press conference and everything
> > is being sorted out. Democrats speak against republicans, republicans speak against
> > democrats, jews speak against christians, christians speak against jews, blacks speak
> > against whites, whites speak against blacks... tories speak against conservatists, etc
etc...
>
> You obviously dislike the world you live in. What are you going to do
> about it?
Well, since I am fully aware that in this world there are many people liek you,
and even worse, you know 'what' am I going to do? Nothing. YOU and the
rest of the brainwashed flock don't deserve anything better. Just how I see it.
Why, you speak against intellectuals. Do you not see the
> hypocrisy in what you're doing?
No, there is no hypocrisy in that. Cause intellectuals are rich bastards'
lieges. Vassals. Pet dogs. And a few of them that are any good, they can't
do a damn thing. It's just liek any other part of our society. Scum rules, cause
they are afraid of death, hence they pursuit power and wealth and money in
their lifetimes... never thinking about anything. And when that day comes, when
the 'master' comes to collect his dues... they die, regreting that they haven't thought
about it all earlier.
> > What one can plainly see is that all these 'political' options are just trying
> > to slander the other party, and fooling the 'people' into voting. And among those
> > 'politicans' there are many, many, many intellectuals, and educated people.
> > And not only that, many, many, many educated people WORK for politicans.
> >
> > So, I ask you, what do we do? Wait for Jesus to come and die for us again?
>
> Or you could be the change you want to see happen. First, stop speaking
> against intellectuals because you are only contributing to the problem
> that you see in the world.
No I'm not. How do I contribute? YOU contribute it more than I.
What? YOU are an intellectual? Or you're just a butt sniffer?
> > Wait for aliens to come and save us? Man, GOD is surely not going to help.
> > I wouldn't. Try watching the movie called 'God Has A Rap Sheet'. You'll get
> > the picture.
>
> No need.
Well, go ahead.
> > If man is free, than man should take responsibilites for that freedom
> > that has been 'given' to him. But no...
>
> I'm going to stop the rant right here. You are speaking out against
> that which you are doing. You, my dear sir, are a hypocrite of the
> highest order.
Yes, try to slander me, but you know it... and I know it hurts mate hearing
so much truth, presented in bad english I admit... and where? On usenet.
Yes, I would have been a perfect liege of the devil and rich people, if ONLY
I had studied, and 'learned', and 'used' my mind... yes, and 'contribute' to this
wonderful society we live in. Oh well, at least, I have my soul... hahahahaha...
Cheers Daniel. You really made me laugh. Your biased opinions really made
me laugh a lot.
ivan
"Greywolf" <grey...@cybrzn.com> wrote in message news:11gia3a...@corp.supernews.com...
> > "won't give you the time-of-day"
> >
> > I rest my case.
> >
> >
> Meaning that after finding you to be pretty 'decent' (even to the point of
> saying she
> 'likes' you, she will, nevertheless, have nothing to do with you simply
> because 'you'
> are an atheist. I guess if I was a 'Christian' who beat women up and cheated
> on them
> left and right, I'd be considered a 'catch,' eh?
Explain 'gaywolf', errrm, sorry, 'greywolf' the phrase 'won't give me
the time-of-the-day'... please...
And btw, are you such a pathetic atheist that you need to pick
up on young catholic girls? Or you just get kicks by 'dating' a girl
who believes in everything you hate? Just aksing... don't go bitching
to your master, zie devil, right away... as I said, just aksing.
DanielSan
> "Greywolf" <grey...@cybrzn.com> wrote in message news:11gia3a...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
>>>"won't give you the time-of-day"
>>>
>>>I rest my case.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Meaning that after finding you to be pretty 'decent' (even to the point of
>>saying she
>>'likes' you, she will, nevertheless, have nothing to do with you simply
>>because 'you'
>>are an atheist. I guess if I was a 'Christian' who beat women up and cheated
>>on them
>>left and right, I'd be considered a 'catch,' eh?
>
>
> Explain 'gaywolf',
Debate over. You lost. Ad hominem in less than two words. Nice job.
DanielSan
> "DanielSan" <danie...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message news:nk7Oe.6882$M3.4102@trnddc05...
>
>
>>>I didn't say that.
>>
>>Yes, you didn't. You said that we are *WORSE* than child molestors.
>>Saith you: "You atheists are even worse than some priests."
>
>
> You git, not all priests are child molesters. You really are a git.
And I didn't say "all priests."
>
>
>>>>Why are they "the worst scum there is?"
>>>
>>>
>>What follows is a rant, so I'm going to try to rebut each topic.
>
>
> Rebut.
I did.
>
>
>>>Because they present themselves and their professions liek it was
>>>something worth while.
>>
>>And they aren't?
>
>
> No they aren't. If they were, the world would be even MORE
> magnificent than it already is. And we all know, and see how
> 'magnificent' it is, right, git?
YEs. The world is magnificent.
Tell me. Why do you feel the need to end this question with an insult?
Does it make you feel superior to me?
>
>
>>>But, as you look around yourself... journalists
>>>claim that their profession is noble, and that 'truth' is their guiding light.
>>
>>Yes.
>
>
> You are a plonker, aren't you?
No.
>
>
>>>Hm... sure.
>>
>>Yes, sure.
>
>
> Doubtful.
Why?
>
>
>>>Lawayers think of themselves that they are also doing a
>>>'divine' job, and that they should get respecet wherever they show up.
>>
>>Everyone hates lawyers, until they need one.
>
>
> Yeees, git, cause it is a nice 'invention'. I bet that centuries ago, rich
> fucks decided 'let's wrtie some laws. we'll tell poor idiots that it is for
> a common good. but in fact, we will be just protecting our backs. and
> yes, we would need someone to push these laws... yes, let's have lawyers
> and judges. yeeees... grin grin grin'.
You really are a plonker, aren't you?
>
> If you believe in anything different than that, you really, but reallt are a git.
Tell me. Is your tenacity to insult those that disagree with you a
failure, somehow, to get your point across, if you have one?
>
>
>>>Secret agents? I don't need to emphasise the brain washing within those
>>>folks.
>>
>>What brainwashing?
>
>
> Plonker.
Yes. Sadly you seem to have little or no knowledge at all.
>
>
>>>Errm... cops? Hahahahaha... don't make me laugh.
>>
>>What do you have against law enforcement?
>
>
> Well, they have people liek you out on the streets. Innit obvious?
If you're trying to get my dander up, it's not going to work. See, I
matured beyond the need to insult my interlocutors.
>
>
>>>The only reason
>>>for the existance of the police is to stop PEOPLE of rioting, and demanding
>>>changes, for good, of course.
>>
>>Wrong. They are there to protect citizens.
>
>
> You lie. Not only a git, but a liar. Nice, Daniel. Fell on ye head
> while you were little?
No.
>
>
>>>And yes, cops rarely STOP the crime, before
>>>it happens,
>>
>>Possibly because a crime isn't a crime until it happens. No one is psychic.
>
>
> Yeah... 'Daniel'... you need a brain medicine. I recommend AIR! That
> would suit you just fine.
Can you show me a crime where the act has not happened yet? Any crime
at all. Go ahead.
>
>
>>>usually they are on the scene AFTER the crime has been commited.
>>
>>Of course! That is the definition of a crime. A crime is an act that
>>is committed that is in violation of the law. Until the act is
>>committed, there is no crime.
>
>
> Oh God... you really are dim.
Do you have any argument beyond insults?
>
>
>>>Whow!... and yes, intellectuals. Wow, same as 'atrists',
>>
>>...artists?...
>
>
> No, git, atrists. Jeez...
What the heck is an atrist?
>
>
>>>they think that THEY are
>>>'the shit'. That beacuse of their 'knowledge' other people should unquestionably
>>>believe what they say.
>>
>>Like you?
>
>
> Not liek me. Liek you.
I don't want anyone to beieve what I say unquestionably. I want them to
find out for themselves. Do you feel the need for people to believe
what you say unquestionably?
>
>
>>>I say, in a world liek this, those who have the most of
>>>knowledge should be first to blame for this world we are now, 2005, living in.
>>
>>Whereas you are the first to blame "intellectuals" for the world we are
>>in now?
>
>
> First? No, git, not the first. One of many.
Therefore, you are one of many hypocrites.
>
>
>>>What, I'm going to blame some hungry poor child from Africa?
>>
>>I don't know. Are you?
>
>
> Well, I sure as hell know YOU ain't blaming cops or lawyers.
> Or intellectuals. Hence; you just might be one of them. Or someone
> in your family is.
Nope. No one in my family is a cop or a lawyer. However, my family can
string two sentences together without the need for conjugated insults.
>
>
>>>Am I to blame those
>>>awful terrorists? Terrorists are PRODUCT of this system, and of this 'civilized'
>>>world, in which both you and I live in. Should I blame... I dunno, poor people?
>>>Criminals? Women? Jews? Nazis? No man... THOSE ones who HAVE power
>>>are the ones to be blamed.
>>
>>Sure. Because you scapegoat.
>
>
> Scapegoat? Of course I 'scapegoat'. And what a better scapegoat than some
> rich bastards and their vassals?
Scapegoat: One that is made to bear the blame of others.
Hypocrite: A person who professes beliefs and opinions that he does not
hold.
You say that the problem with the world is those that blame others, yet
you blame many folks, and scapegoat a lot of them. Tell me. Does it
make you feel superior? Does it give you a rush? Are you over the age
of 18?
>
>
>>>And they know it. But no. A press conference and everything
>>>is being sorted out. Democrats speak against republicans, republicans speak against
>>>democrats, jews speak against christians, christians speak against jews, blacks speak
>>>against whites, whites speak against blacks... tories speak against conservatists, etc
>
> etc...
>
>>You obviously dislike the world you live in. What are you going to do
>>about it?
>
>
> Well, since I am fully aware that in this world there are many people liek you,
Like me? You mean, someone who can speak intelligently?
> and even worse, you know 'what' am I going to do? Nothing. YOU and the
> rest of the brainwashed flock don't deserve anything better. Just how I see it.
Why should I feel the need to get acceptance from someone who uses the
word "git" in every other sentence?
>
> Why, you speak against intellectuals. Do you not see the
>
>>hypocrisy in what you're doing?
>
>
> No, there is no hypocrisy in that.
That is the epitome of hypocrisy.
> Cause intellectuals are rich bastards'
> lieges.
Opinion.
> Vassals.
Opinion.
> Pet dogs.
Opinion.
> And a few of them that are any good, they can't
> do a damn thing.
Prove it.
> It's just liek any other part of our society. Scum rules, cause
> they are afraid of death, hence they pursuit power and wealth and money in
> their lifetimes... never thinking about anything. And when that day comes, when
> the 'master' comes to collect his dues... they die, regreting that they haven't thought
> about it all earlier.
Tell me. Were you dropped on your head as a child?
>
>
>>>What one can plainly see is that all these 'political' options are just trying
>>>to slander the other party, and fooling the 'people' into voting. And among those
>>>'politicans' there are many, many, many intellectuals, and educated people.
>>>And not only that, many, many, many educated people WORK for politicans.
>>>
>>>So, I ask you, what do we do? Wait for Jesus to come and die for us again?
>>
>>Or you could be the change you want to see happen. First, stop speaking
>>against intellectuals because you are only contributing to the problem
>>that you see in the world.
>
>
> No I'm not.
Then speaking out against others is not a problem.
> How do I contribute?
If speaking out against others is the cause of the world's problems, as
you say, then you are contributing by speakinn out against others.
YOU must be the change you want to see in the world.
> YOU contribute it more than I.
How?
> What? YOU are an intellectual?
If, by intellectual, you mean someone who uses intelligence, then, sure.
I'm an intellectual.
> Or you're just a butt sniffer?
Exactly what do you get out of constantly attempting to insult me?
>
>
>>>Wait for aliens to come and save us? Man, GOD is surely not going to help.
>>>I wouldn't. Try watching the movie called 'God Has A Rap Sheet'. You'll get
>>>the picture.
>>
>>No need.
>
>
> Well, go ahead.
Why?
>
>
>>>If man is free, than man should take responsibilites for that freedom
>>>that has been 'given' to him. But no...
>>
>>I'm going to stop the rant right here. You are speaking out against
>>that which you are doing. You, my dear sir, are a hypocrite of the
>>highest order.
>
>
> Yes, try to slander me, but you know it... and I know it hurts mate hearing
> so much truth,
Truth? When has truth entered the picture?
> presented in bad english I admit... and where? On usenet.
> Yes, I would have been a perfect liege of the devil and rich people, if ONLY
> I had studied, and 'learned', and 'used' my mind... yes, and 'contribute' to this
> wonderful society we live in. Oh well, at least, I have my soul... hahahahaha...
Soul?
>
> Cheers Daniel. You really made me laugh. Your biased opinions really made
> me laugh a lot.
I'm glad I can provide entertainment to ignorant little immature
jackasses like yourself. (See? I can insult, too!)
Michael Gray
You, by your very own words, have placed yourself squarely in the
"moral flatliner" ward.
ivan
"DanielSan" <danie...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message news:x4hOe.8987$M3.2546@trnddc05...
> ivan wrote:
> > "Greywolf" <grey...@cybrzn.com> wrote in message
news:11gia3a...@corp.supernews.com...
> > Explain 'gaywolf',
>
> Debate over. You lost. Ad hominem in less than two words. Nice job.
Debate over? Jesus, you guys sure sound liek fags, NO OFFENCE!
Man, fags wouldn't be this touchy goddamnit!
ivan
"Michael Gray" <fle...@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:5rajg1dg0850664rt...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 10:17:01 +0200, "ivan" <iva...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You, by your very own words, have placed yourself squarely in the
> "moral flatliner" ward.
Cool. Are you the president of that ward or just vice-president?
ivan
"DanielSan" <danie...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message news:dmhOe.5883$0U6.2583@trnddc09...
> >>Yes, you didn't. You said that we are *WORSE* than child molestors.
> >>Saith you: "You atheists are even worse than some priests."
> >
> >
> > You git, not all priests are child molesters. You really are a git.
>
> And I didn't say "all priests."
Then write it, K?
> >>What follows is a rant, so I'm going to try to rebut each topic.
> >
> >
> > Rebut.
>
> I did.
Sure.
> > No they aren't. If they were, the world would be even MORE
> > magnificent than it already is. And we all know, and see how
> > 'magnificent' it is, right, git?
>
>
> YEs. The world is magnificent.
>
> Tell me. Why do you feel the need to end this question with an insult?
> Does it make you feel superior to me?
No, it just proves that you ARE a git. That's all. Cmon, don't cry.
There are worse things in this magnificent world of yours than being
a GIT! You agree?
> >>>But, as you look around yourself... journalists
> >>>claim that their profession is noble, and that 'truth' is their guiding light.
> >>
> >>Yes.
> >
> >
> > You are a plonker, aren't you?
>
> No.
Eh, have faith man, have faith... hahahaha... see? YOU Daniel,
HAVE faith. THAT's why you believe that you are NOT a
plonker. Heh...
> >>>Hm... sure.
> >>
> >>Yes, sure.
> >
> >
> > Doubtful.
>
> Why?
What why?
> >>Everyone hates lawyers, until they need one.
> >
> >
> > Yeees, git, cause it is a nice 'invention'. I bet that centuries ago, rich
> > fucks decided 'let's wrtie some laws. we'll tell poor idiots that it is for
> > a common good. but in fact, we will be just protecting our backs. and
> > yes, we would need someone to push these laws... yes, let's have lawyers
> > and judges. yeeees... grin grin grin'.
>
> You really are a plonker, aren't you?
No I'm not. Cause it was liek I said. More or less. What I'm pretty damn
sure was that it surely wasn't liek; let's help people. Let's make this world
a better place. Yes. We who have money, we should help poor people.
C'mon. Git. Admit.
> > If you believe in anything different than that, you really, but reallt are a git.
>
> Tell me. Is your tenacity to insult those that disagree with you a
> failure, somehow, to get your point across, if you have one?
No dude, you are a GIT! But you believe that you are NOT a git.
See the point? No? Yes? 1? 0?
> >>What brainwashing?
> >
> >
> > Plonker.
>
> Yes. Sadly you seem to have little or no knowledge at all.
Hahahahahaha... see 'git', I say 'brainwashed secret service',
you aks 'what brainwashing', I say plonker, you say I don't
have knowledge. Hahahahaha... still a plonker.
> >>What do you have against law enforcement?
> >
> >
> > Well, they have people liek you out on the streets. Innit obvious?
>
> If you're trying to get my dander up, it's not going to work. See, I
> matured beyond the need to insult my interlocutors.
I don't insult you. GIT is not an insult. Are you by any chance a fag?
Emotional? GROW UP! Why do people on usenet bitch and moan liek
a bunch of cry babies when you call them stoopid, or git, or anything liek
that... people see horror on TV, LIVE horror, politicans lie in their faces,
but HEY 'when someone calls me a git on the usenet, I get all offended
and I take it personal'. Cmon dude... chill...
> > You lie. Not only a git, but a liar. Nice, Daniel. Fell on ye head
> > while you were little?
>
> No.
Hmmm... then you must have fallen on ye head when you
were a bit older.
> >>Possibly because a crime isn't a crime until it happens. No one is psychic.
> >
> >
> > Yeah... 'Daniel'... you need a brain medicine. I recommend AIR! That
> > would suit you just fine.
>
> Can you show me a crime where the act has not happened yet? Any crime
> at all. Go ahead.
9/11.
> >>Of course! That is the definition of a crime. A crime is an act that
> >>is committed that is in violation of the law. Until the act is
> >>committed, there is no crime.
> >
> >
> > Oh God... you really are dim.
>
> Do you have any argument beyond insults?
Arguments? Oh Jesus, not another one who reads books and thinks
he always needs arguments and hard facts...
Lookie here, COPS are HERE to PROTECT WEALTHY PEOPLE.
NOT POOR PEOPLE. Poor people need to BELIEVE cops are
here to protect them. And YOU, 'Daniel', need to think about it a tad
more. Mmmkay? Gooood...
> >>...artists?...
> >
> >
> > No, git, atrists. Jeez...
>
> What the heck is an atrist?
It's a dude called Daniel, on alt.atheism, who doesn't know about
lapsus calami, and who, apparently for some reason, does not possess
a single brain cell in his head. Yeah... something liek that.
> >>>they think that THEY are
> >>>'the shit'. That beacuse of their 'knowledge' other people should unquestionably
> >>>believe what they say.
> >>
> >>Like you?
> >
> >
> > Not liek me. Liek you.
>
> I don't want anyone to beieve what I say unquestionably. I want them to
> find out for themselves. Do you feel the need for people to believe
> what you say unquestionably?
No. I just need them to think. But hey, it would much easier to MAKE
them believe then to make them start thinking. Look at yourself... for
instance... you HAVE a brain, but you don't USE it. At least, not properly.
> >>>I say, in a world liek this, those who have the most of
> >>>knowledge should be first to blame for this world we are now, 2005, living in.
> >>
> >>Whereas you are the first to blame "intellectuals" for the world we are
> >>in now?
> >
> >
> > First? No, git, not the first. One of many.
>
> Therefore, you are one of many hypocrites.
No, 'Daniel', the only hypocrite between you and me, is YOU. And,
you can go with this charade as long as you want, I got time, I got brains,
I got wit, I got truth... and all you have is a brainwashed mind. And you
sound liek a politican... or someone from the 'system'. Hear hear... word!
> > Well, I sure as hell know YOU ain't blaming cops or lawyers.
> > Or intellectuals. Hence; you just might be one of them. Or someone
> > in your family is.
>
> Nope. No one in my family is a cop or a lawyer. However, my family can
> string two sentences together without the need for conjugated insults.
Good for them. I hope they got far. And you too... I mean, you will get
far. If I was the grandmaster of this 'system', I would make you my liege.
You are a perfect example what kind of people NWO needs... for example.
> >>Sure. Because you scapegoat.
> >
> >
> > Scapegoat? Of course I 'scapegoat'. And what a better scapegoat than some
> > rich bastards and their vassals?
>
> Scapegoat: One that is made to bear the blame of others.
> Hypocrite: A person who professes beliefs and opinions that he does not
> hold.
I hold 'em. You know that, c'mon. And I 'scapegoat' rich people. Why not?
Cause they have money? Power? Huh... I have thunder and lightning. Hahaha...
Stoooopid humans, just that... nothing more, nothing less; stoopid humanity.
> You say that the problem with the world is those that blame others, yet
> you blame many folks, and scapegoat a lot of them. Tell me. Does it
> make you feel superior? Does it give you a rush? Are you over the age
> of 18?
No man, I don't fall for that psychological determination of people. Cause
I find it, in everyday life, to be a hypocrisy. Dude, 'Daniel', you really, really,
need a reality check. I'm not 18, I don't blame EVERYONE, I blame those
ones who deserved to be blamed. And to be stomped on. You know it, I
know it, THEY know it. Alea iacta est. Long time ago...
> > etc...
> >
> >>You obviously dislike the world you live in. What are you going to do
> >>about it?
> >
> >
> > Well, since I am fully aware that in this world there are many people liek you,
>
> Like me? You mean, someone who can speak intelligently?
No, the word twisters. And pompous idiots. Hypocrites of this system.
Soulless people. People without beliefs but greed, and selfindulgence.
Selfimportance. Yeah... but mostly, word twisters.
> > and even worse, you know 'what' am I going to do? Nothing. YOU and the
> > rest of the brainwashed flock don't deserve anything better. Just how I see it.
>
> Why should I feel the need to get acceptance from someone who uses the
> word "git" in every other sentence?
Well, maybe, cause you ARE a git? Hahahahahaha... don't be angry.
> > Why, you speak against intellectuals. Do you not see the
> >
> >>hypocrisy in what you're doing?
> >
> >
> > No, there is no hypocrisy in that.
>
> That is the epitome of hypocrisy.
Sure. Look around you, THEN git (see, how funny I am, as get, git, GIT...
did you get IT, git it, GIT? hahahahahaha...) back to me, aiight?
> > Cause intellectuals are rich bastards'
> > lieges.
>
> Opinion.
FACT! Look at your history books. Then read them, then THINK, then
put things into the 'real world'... and you will git the picture... (I won't say
git at the end of this sentence, don't worry... git it?)...
> > Vassals.
>
> Opinion.
Fact dude. Don't run from the truth, accept it. Oh yes, but you CAN'T
handle the truth. Silly me...
> > Pet dogs.
>
> Opinion.
Ok, fact...
> > And a few of them that are any good, they can't
> > do a damn thing.
>
> Prove it.
Look dude, I'm getting tired from the liek of you. OK, I WILL PROVE IT,
but first you need to prove that there is no intelligent life out there in the Universe?
I think that is about the same...
> > It's just liek any other part of our society. Scum rules, cause
> > they are afraid of death, hence they pursuit power and wealth and money in
> > their lifetimes... never thinking about anything. And when that day comes, when
> > the 'master' comes to collect his dues... they die, regreting that they haven't thought
> > about it all earlier.
>
> Tell me. Were you dropped on your head as a child?
No. Why? You think I fell, cause you fell?
> >>>What one can plainly see is that all these 'political' options are just trying
> >>>to slander the other party, and fooling the 'people' into voting. And among those
> >>>'politicans' there are many, many, many intellectuals, and educated people.
> >>>And not only that, many, many, many educated people WORK for politicans.
> >>>
> >>>So, I ask you, what do we do? Wait for Jesus to come and die for us again?
> >>
> >>Or you could be the change you want to see happen. First, stop speaking
> >>against intellectuals because you are only contributing to the problem
> >>that you see in the world.
> >
> >
> > No I'm not.
>
> Then speaking out against others is not a problem.
Others? WHAT others? That is the question... but hey, I know, you don't.
> > How do I contribute?
>
> If speaking out against others is the cause of the world's problems, as
> you say, then you are contributing by speakinn out against others.
No, speaking against those ones who deserved it, ain't nothing wrong with
that. But to be a weasel liek you, now that is not only the crime against yourself,
but a crime against humanity. And don't try wax weaseling your way out of this too,
'DANIEL'...
> YOU must be the change you want to see in the world.
No. Sadly, it's YOU! Hahahahahaha...
> > YOU contribute it more than I.
>
> How?
First, pull yer head form your arse... then GIT back to me for further
instructions.
> > What? YOU are an intellectual?
>
> If, by intellectual, you mean someone who uses intelligence, then, sure.
> I'm an intellectual.
WOW! American people. Hahahaha... WHAT a mind job amerika IS!
WAS! WILL be until ye all come falling down...
> > Or you're just a butt sniffer?
>
> Exactly what do you get out of constantly attempting to insult me?
Errrm, sorry. Did I hurt your feelings? Or are you just pretending?
Honestly, tell me.
> >>>Wait for aliens to come and save us? Man, GOD is surely not going to help.
> >>>I wouldn't. Try watching the movie called 'God Has A Rap Sheet'. You'll get
> >>>the picture.
> >>
> >>No need.
> >
> >
> > Well, go ahead.
>
> Why?
Well... I dunno, YOU are an intellectual, and true intellectuals are not
afraid of different things, and things that do not neccesserily 'support'
their beliefs, views, thoughts... but I see, YOU are NOT an intellectual.
Cause you won't try and watch the movie cause there is the word GOD
in the title. Jesus, WHERE do I FIND these dim bastards? Man... oh well,
I call it community service.
> >>>If man is free, than man should take responsibilites for that freedom
> >>>that has been 'given' to him. But no...
> >>
> >>I'm going to stop the rant right here. You are speaking out against
> >>that which you are doing. You, my dear sir, are a hypocrite of the
> >>highest order.
> >
> >
> > Yes, try to slander me, but you know it... and I know it hurts mate hearing
> > so much truth,
>
> Truth? When has truth entered the picture?
From the first letter I wrote. And then it disappeared when you hit the
reply button, but it reappeared again when I hit the reply button, and shit,
look, the process repeats...
> > presented in bad english I admit... and where? On usenet.
> > Yes, I would have been a perfect liege of the devil and rich people, if ONLY
> > I had studied, and 'learned', and 'used' my mind... yes, and 'contribute' to this
> > wonderful society we live in. Oh well, at least, I have my soul... hahahahaha...
>
> Soul?
Yeah, something you lost somewhere along the way... dunno how, am not
interrested, but you did... see... THAT'S the catch 22. YOU HAD soul,
but you lost it. SOUL is invisible. And when you have lost it, and you KNOW
you lost something, you made yourself believe that it is all right, soul doesn't
exist... and etc etc... don't worry man, it just sign of the times we are living in.
There are FAR too many liek yourself out there, 'Daniel'... rejoice!
> > Cheers Daniel. You really made me laugh. Your biased opinions really made
> > me laugh a lot.
>
> I'm glad I can provide entertainment to ignorant little immature
> jackasses like yourself. (See? I can insult, too!)
Buhuhu... I'm insulted. I cry... buhuhuhu...
GOOD for you!
Del
Apostate wrote:
> On 21 Aug 2005 14:15:44 -0700, "Del" <jfa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Apostate wrote:
> >> On 21 Aug 2005 06:56:40 -0700, "Del" <jfa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Atheists
> >> > And if the religious leave us alone, then what is the big
> >> >deal? Only evangelist at heists feel differently. There just is
> >> > a lot of them on a.a.
> >>
> >> To whom do this lot evangelize?
> >
> >I see them cross posting to religious groups, or continue
> >with those crossposts. When I have pointed out that anti-theist
> > posts were x-posted from a.a. and not the reverse, they don't
> >really care. Chris Lee for example.
> >>
> Horseshit.
Oh. Well what's this then?
-= Begin Quote =-
Path:
g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!bigfeed.bellsouth.net!bignumber.bellsouth.net!news.bellsouth.net!bignews4.bellsouth.net.POSTED!af502483!not-for-mail
From: "Bill" <w...@bellsouth.net>
Newsgroups:
alt.atheism,alt.christian.religion,alt.religion,alt.religion.all-worlds
Subject: DOES A REAL GOD EXIST?
Lines: 66
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
Message-ID: <6YuAe.31$ag7...@bignews4.bellsouth.net>
X-Complaints-To: ab...@bellsouth.net
X-Abuse-Info: Please forward a copy of all headers for proper handling
X-Trace:
npbhgpngjbkmjfegdbdpiflmbcekedmfhojhikkbagflhcbohheoojjlnkdnidafmjdakpneldmekacdalpocjopfbbgjgfaflpahpnmodomkalibifpchdbicfkgnmknhmmocbgbgoefdiddpjdffkndkaaabno
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:00:34 EDT
Organization: BellSouth Internet Service
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:03:28 -0400
A simple refutation of the existence of Gods.
There are thousands of God beliefs and each person, or groups of
persons,
believes their God is the real God and all the others are fakes.
Because
none of these gods clearly announces directly from his heaven that he
is the
real God, and all the others are fakes, this is logical evidence that
no
real God exists.
The claims and opinions in various religious documents such as those
below
are not logical objective evidence of the real God.
Baha'i Sacrid writings
Life of Buddha - Dhammapada - Pali cannon
The Bible - Christian religious documents - 18 English versions alone.
No originals of the old or new testaments exist. They are all copies
of
copies etc. created and embellished by mortal selfish men.
The Book of Mormon - Church of Latter Day Saints
The Analects - Confuscianism
The Eddas and Sagas - Icelandic beliefs
Wicca - Neo paganism of Greece and Rome over the centuries
Bhagavgita and Rig Veda - Hinduism
Qur'an - Islam
The Tanakh - Jewism
Tao-Te-Ching - Taoism
Nag Hammadi - Gnostics
Zhuan Falun - Falun Gong
And other minor religious documents and claims.
The claims of other mortals are not objective evidence of who is the
real
God. They are merely the unproven opinions of other mortals.
If a real God wanted people to follow and adore him, he certainly would
make
it clear and irrefutable that he is the real God and all the others are
pretenders.
The objective evidence is that god did not create man but quite the
opposite; that man created Gods.
-= End Quote =-
I responded:
" Did you know that crossposting flame bait like this to the
groups you did is considered troll behavior?"
He responded:
"Did you know this was facts not flame bait and that you are not the
judge
of toll behavior. If you can't deal with the post be honest."
It is hardly the only example. Here is another one:
Message ID: <eYmdnRa2DoR...@comcast.com>
> Nearly all of the time, crossposts across religious groups and a.a. are rocketed into
> a.a. from the religious group(s); only a handful of a.a. posters like to 'just see what
> the religious groups will think of this,'
Interesting claim. Got any evidence for it?
> except on occasions when they are actually
> asking for a religious pov on some point. As for "continuing" a crosspost, each
> and every poster who keeps both (all) ng's in the headers "continues" the
> x-post.
So what? That makes it ok then?
> Atheist "continuing" is not a distinct phenomenon from xian "continuing".
When atheists continue a cross post started in a.a. and then
flame the fundies who have been sucked into responding
then they are doing the same thing they bitch about fundies
doing. It is called "hypocrisy."
> Anyone who's fe d up with a crossposted thread is free to send their own contributions
> to their 'home base' ng alone, and/or to kill the whole thread in their newsreader.
No kidding. What's your point?
>
> For the sake of honesty (and the future of your allegedly immortal soul)
Hahahahahahaha! You assume that anyone who dares criticize
atheists could not possibly be an atheist himself which is an
insult to atheists: as if no atheist is honest enough to do that.
> you ought to
> si t down and study a sample of twenty threads in each group, in the Google archives,
Like you have, you mean?
> from each of the last several months, to demonstrate by a patient examination of the
> headers *where* x-posting usually originates.
You are the one who brought up the subject "*where* x-posting
usually originates" not I.
> You'd be mortified, and forced t o
> apologize for your comments.
Why is that?
Del
nobody wrote:
> "Greywolf" <grey...@cybrzn.com> wrote:
> >"nobody" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote
> >> "Greywolf" <grey...@cybrzn.com> wrote:
>
> >> [...]
> >>>So what do we atheists do? Do we throw the baby out with the bath water or
> >>>intellectuals of the world rise up together, and in force (ala the ID
> >>>versus
> >> [...]
>
> >> There's your problem, if, by virtue of being an atheist, you believe
> >> you are an intellectual and thus superior to the masses. If that be
> >> the case, getting off your high horse and recognizing your place in
> >> society will go a long way towards integration and contentness.
>
> [...]
> >about. And why's that? Because a Christian told them what we are all about,
> >not an atheist.
> >That's why.
>
> You need to take a deep breath, calm down, take your medication, drink
> some tea, whatever.
If you can't defend your position, ad hominem
is a rather obvious and poor substitute.
World in general and religion in particular is
> much more complicated than your juvenile model. Religion has a point
> and place, or else it wouldn't have evolved.
Likewise astrology.
Del
ivan wrote:
> "Greywolf" <grey...@cybrzn.com> wrote in message news:11gia3a...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > > "won't give you the time-of-day"
> > >
> > > I rest my case.
> > >
> > >
> > Meaning that after finding you to be pretty 'decent' (even to the point of
> > saying she
> > 'likes' you, she will, nevertheless, have nothing to do with you simply
> > because 'you'
> > are an atheist. I guess if I was a 'Christian' who beat women up and cheated
> > on them
> > left and right, I'd be considered a 'catch,' eh?
>
> Explain 'gaywolf', errrm, sorry, 'greywolf' the phrase 'won't give me
> the time-of-the-day'... please...
>
> And btw, are you such a pathetic atheist that you need to pick
> up on young catholic girls?
Oh oh. Looks like the green-eyed monster raises its ugly head.
Look, attacking your moral and intellectual superiors won't
get you a date, dufus.
> Or you just get kicks by 'dating' a girl
> who believes in everything you hate? Just aksing...
Just what?
> don't go bitching
> to your master, zie devil, right away... as I said, just aksing.
No one invited you to a.a. so you must be here because
you like to be around atheists. Very common, actually,
like you.
ivan
"Del" <jfa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1124755217.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > Explain 'gaywolf', errrm, sorry, 'greywolf' the phrase 'won't give me
> > the time-of-the-day'... please...
> >
> > And btw, are you such a pathetic atheist that you need to pick
> > up on young catholic girls?
>
> Oh oh. Looks like the green-eyed monster raises its ugly head.
> Look, attacking your moral and intellectual superiors won't
> get you a date, dufus.
SUPERIORS? Hahahahahaha... man, an ANT is superior to
the whole bunch of you. Can you COMPREHEND that? An
ANT!
> > Or you just get kicks by 'dating' a girl
> > who believes in everything you hate? Just aksing...
>
> Just what?
Get a brain. Then call me. Call 900-JESUS-SAVES.
And axe for Ivan The Prophet...
> > don't go bitching
> > to your master, zie devil, right away... as I said, just aksing.
>
> No one invited you to a.a. so you must be here because
> you like to be around atheists. Very common, actually,
> like you.
No, I am having lots of spare time, so I thought 'why not'.
And unfortunately for human kind, there are many of you out there.
But hey... who gives a shit? You lost your souls, and now you're
atheists. Fine by me. But I really expected something better then
your replies... I must admit, I don't get it all written down, and I am
lacking experience in correspondence in english, but hey... stoopid
folks wondering what 'liek' means, or 'aks'... shit... you must be veuy,
veuy smart. The bunch of ya. Geeks. NO! Atheist geeks. Damn Bill!
nobody
>nobody wrote:
>> "Greywolf" <grey...@cybrzn.com> wrote:
>> >"nobody" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote
>> >> "Greywolf" <grey...@cybrzn.com> wrote:
>> >> [...]
>> >>>So what do we atheists do? Do we throw the baby out with the bath water or
>> >>>what? I am clue less here. I wonder: Is there a day coming when the
>> >>>intellectuals of the world rise up together, and in force (ala the ID
>> >>>versus
>> >> [...]
>> >> There's your problem, if, by virtue of being an atheist, you believe
>> >> you are an intellectual and thus superior to the masses. If that be
>> >> the case, getting off your high horse and recognizing your place in
>> >> society will go a long way towards integration and contentness.
>> [...]
>> >about. And why's that? Because a Christian told them what we are all about,
>> >not an atheist.
>> >That's why.
>> You need to take a deep breath, calm down, take your medication, drink
>> some tea, whatever.
>If you can't defend your position, ad hominem
>is a rather obvious and poor substitute.
I didn't state a position other than pointing out that Greywolf seems
to need to mature in his way of thinking. What *other* position do you
fancy I am defending?
>World in general and religion in particular is
>> much more complicated than your juvenile model. Religion has a point
>> and place, or else it wouldn't have evolved.
>Likewise astrology.
And your point is?
Greywolf
>
> "Greywolf" <grey...@cybrzn.com> wrote in message
> news:11gia3a...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>> > "won't give you the time-of-day"
>> >
>> > I rest my case.
>> >
>> >
>> Meaning that after finding you to be pretty 'decent' (even to the point
>> of
>> saying she
>> 'likes' you, she will, nevertheless, have nothing to do with you simply
>> because 'you'
>> are an atheist. I guess if I was a 'Christian' who beat women up and
>> cheated
>> on them
>> left and right, I'd be considered a 'catch,' eh?
>
> Explain 'gaywolf', errrm, sorry, 'greywolf' the phrase 'won't give me
> the time-of-the-day'... please...
You are *really* showing your stupidity now, you idiot. 'gaywolf.' eh'? I am
5' 10', I weigh about 200 lbs. I do 210 'crunches' on a routine basis, I can
do over 100 (crappy) push-ups, and I have no means of transportation other
than a mountain bike. 'Town,' is 7 miles away. That means I have to ride 14
miles round-trip just to go to the bank or go to the hardware store. I'm fit
as a fiddle, and can me mean as hell. My best friend in Chicago won the
Golden-Gloves there years ago (and also the Springfield, Illinois
Golden-Gloves. And I use to spar with him. What do you think about that? And
you know what? You turned me on with that 'sexy' talk of yours. I wan't to
know right now - Will you be my girlfriend?
Greywolf
> And btw, are you such a pathetic atheist that you need to pick
> up on young catholic girls? Or you just get kicks by 'dating' a girl
> who believes in everything you hate? Just aksing... don't go bitching
> to your master, zie devil, right away... as I said, just aksing.
>
Geesh. How sad.
Greywolf
Del
ivan wrote:
> "Del" <jfa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:1124755217.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Explain 'gaywolf', errrm, sorry, 'greywolf' the phrase 'won't give me
> > > the time-of-the-day'... please...
> > >
> > > And btw, are you such a pathetic atheist that you need to pick
> > > up on young catholic girls?
> >
> > Oh oh. Looks like the green-eyed monster raises its ugly head.
> > Look, attacking your moral and intellectual superiors won't
> > get you a date, dufus.
>
> SUPERIORS? Hahahahahaha... man, an ANT is superior to
> the whole bunch of you. Can you COMPREHEND that? An
> ANT!
Looks like I struck a nerve. One wonders why "superior"
ants like yourself are compelled to hang around us.
Methinks you protest just a tiny bit too much.
> > > Or you just get kicks by 'dating' a girl
> > > who believes in everything you hate? Just aksing...
> >
> > Just what?
>
> Get a brain.
Sez the logically challenged illiterate. Such amusing irony.
Are you always this stupid or is this a special occasion?
>Then call me.
Oh come on. You know you are compelled to hang around
us. You are hurt because you don't get the attention from
us you think you deserve. Quit sniveling about it.
> Call 900-JESUS-SAVES.
Hahahahaha! Looks like Jesus has failed horribly in your
case.
> And axe for Ivan The Prophet...
>
> > > don't go bitching
> > > to your master, zie devil, right away... as I said, just aksing.
> >
> > No one invited you to a.a. so you must be here because
> > you l ike to be around atheists. Very common, actually,
> > like you.
>
> No, I am having lots of spare time,
One of the advantages of being useless.
> so I thought 'why not'.
It is very important to you that we believe your excuses of
why you are here. But the truth is obvious.
> And unfortunately for human kind, there are many of you out there.
That's why you are compelled to hang out in a.a.
> But hey... who gives a shit?
You do, obviously.
>You lost your souls, and now you're
> atheists. Fine by me.
Jealousy is a sickness ivanhoe. We get your type here all
the time: cowardly wannabes who become hostile when
their bids for attention from their superiors are rejected.
They, like you, don't realize just how transparent they,
and you, are.
> But I really expected something better then
> your replies...
See what I mean? Awww, did we hurt your feelings? LOL!
>I must admit, I don't get it all written down, and I am
> lacking experience in correspondence in english,
Don't be so modest. I'm sure your ignorance transcends language
altogether.
> but hey... stoopid
> folks wondering what 'liek' means, or 'aks'...
When you can't take responsibility for even your blatant
shortcomings it is a sign of rabid insecurity. Sorry that
being around atheists make you feel insecure.
Try improving yourself.
>shit... you must be veuy,
> veuy smart.
>From your perspective I'm sure most people are.
> The bunch of ya. Geeks. NO! Atheist geeks. Damn Bill!
Good argument. Your inability to feel humiliated by the
half-witted rubbish you spew is a real gift.
You may go now.
Del
> fancy I am defending?
"There's your problem, if, by virtue of being an atheist, you believe
you are an intellectual and thus superior to the masses."
> >World in general and religion in particular is
> >> much more complicated than your juvenile model. Religion has a point
> >> and place, or else it wouldn't have evolved.
>
> >Likewise astrology.
>
> And your point is?
To put in perspective the implied significance of having
a "point and place."
"
ivan
> > SUPERIORS? Hahahahahaha... man, an ANT is superior to
> > the whole bunch of you. Can you COMPREHEND that? An
> > ANT!
>
> Looks like I struck a nerve. One wonders why "superior"
> ants like yourself are compelled to hang around us.
> Methinks you protest just a tiny bit too much.
You need some sense... which of course, you atheists
do not have... you are a flock of sheep without a dog
to keep them together.
> > Get a brain.
>
> Sez the logically challenged illiterate. Such amusing irony.
> Are you always this stupid or is this a special occasion?
Illiterate I may be, but that's because english is not my
native language. And I haven't practiced it in a while...
I mean, english...
And I really don't care about YOUR logic. Bcause that
what you call logic I call word twisting...
> >Then call me.
>
> Oh come on. You know you are compelled to hang around
> us. You are hurt because you don't get the attention from
> us you think you deserve. Quit sniveling about it.
Attention? No. I'm just here to have some fun.
> > Call 900-JESUS-SAVES.
>
> Hahahahaha! Looks like Jesus has failed horribly in your
> case.
Says an atheist! Oh, YOU DO like Jesus, you just don't
like the pope. Well, yes mmmmyes... atheists would surely
hail Jesus if he 'came'. HE would die for YOUR sins... how
convenient.
> > No, I am having lots of spare time,
>
> One of the advantages of being useless.
Useless as in 'not contributing to this rotten society and
working for a company, and paying taxes, and by that supporting
wars overseas'? Yeah... if THAT is being 'useless' you can bet
your ass I'm 'useless'.
> > so I thought 'why not'.
>
> It is very important to you that we believe your excuses of
> why you are here. But the truth is obvious.
Teach me... 'Del'...
> > And unfortunately for human kind, there are many of you out there.
>
> That's why you are compelled to hang out in a.a.
No. As I said, I'm here just have some fun. That's all.
> > But hey... who gives a shit?
>
> You do, obviously.
So do you, OBVIOUSLY!
> >You lost your souls, and now you're
> > atheists. Fine by me.
>
> Jealousy is a sickness ivanhoe. We get your type here all
> the time: cowardly wannabes who become hostile when
> their bids for attention from their superiors are rejected.
> They, like you, don't realize just how transparent they,
> and you, are.
So are you m8, SO ARE YOU...
> > But I really expected something better then
> > your replies...
>
> See what I mean? Awww, did we hurt your feelings? LOL!
Nope.
> >I must admit, I don't get it all written down, and I am
> > lacking experience in correspondence in english,
>
> Don't be so modest. I'm sure your ignorance transcends language
> altogether.
Yeah, I hear that a lot from the likes of you... but hey... I don't
give a shit, cause you wanna know why? Both YOU and THEM
lost your souls somewhere along the way... and THAT my dear
Watson, is something ANYONE can see. Even if you just LOOK
at someone, let alone making a conversation of any kind with them...
> > but hey... stoopid
> > folks wondering what 'liek' means, or 'aks'...
>
> When you can't take responsibility for even your blatant
> shortcomings it is a sign of rabid insecurity. Sorry that
> being around atheists make you feel insecure.
Responsibility? Dude, just grow a brain, will ya?
> Try improving yourself.
I am. Here I am. Thank you for your time... I will be a much
better person after this. And will have more evidence of just how
you atheists are stoopid... and I must say again; you are as stoopid
as some christian fundamentalist.
> >shit... you must be veuy,
> > veuy smart.
>
> >From your perspective I'm sure most people are.
>
> > The bunch of ya. Geeks. NO! Atheist geeks. Damn Bill!
>
> Good argument. Your inability to feel humiliated by the
> half-witted rubbish you spew is a real gift.
Humiliated? By the likes of YOU? Hahahahaha... man,
people are just plain vanilla stoopid. AND scared. FEAR,
my dear 'DEL', oozes thru your pores... and it is showing.
A LOT!
> You may go now.
Why? Cause YOU said so? Go pick your nose 'Del'...
ivan
"Greywolf" <grey...@cybrzn.com> wrote in message news:11gkt6p...@corp.supernews.com...
> > Explain 'gaywolf', errrm, sorry, 'greywolf' the phrase 'won't give me
> > the time-of-the-day'... please...
>
> You are *really* showing your stupidity now, you idiot. 'gaywolf.' eh'? I am
> 5' 10', I weigh about 200 lbs. I do 210 'crunches' on a routine basis, I can
> do over 100 (crappy) push-ups, and I have no means of transportation other
> than a mountain bike. 'Town,' is 7 miles away. That means I have to ride 14
> miles round-trip just to go to the bank or go to the hardware store. I'm fit
> as a fiddle, and can me mean as hell. My best friend in Chicago won the
> Golden-Gloves there years ago (and also the Springfield, Illinois
> Golden-Gloves. And I use to spar with him. What do you think about that? And
> you know what? You turned me on with that 'sexy' talk of yours. I wan't to
> know right now - Will you be my girlfriend?
Oh my God! I really offended you, right? Sorry man, it WUZZ a JOKE!
But hey, I see you have taken it lightly. Giving me specs about your athletic
abilities, about achievements of your friends... and I bet you would use that
FIST of yours if you had the chance...
> Greywolf
>
> > And btw, are you such a pathetic atheist that you need to pick
> > up on young catholic girls? Or you just get kicks by 'dating' a girl
> > who believes in everything you hate? Just aksing... don't go bitching
> > to your master, zie devil, right away... as I said, just aksing.
> >
> Geesh. How sad.
Yup. You said it, not me...
Auntie Lib
> > > Explain 'gaywolf',
> >
> > Debate over. You lost. Ad hominem in less than two words. Nice job.
>
> Debate over? Jesus, you guys sure sound liek fags, NO OFFENCE!
> Man, fags wouldn't be this touchy goddamnit!
Guys, guys! Don't be mean to poor little ivan. Your hearts will be
touched when you realize that he has yet to make it out of the fourth
grade (for the third time) and it frustrates him. He *really* wants to
learn how to spell the word "like" but they don't teach it 'til the
fifth grade. What's a fuckwit to do with that sort of handicap but
bother grownups on Usenet?
Go easy on him. He's unarmed.
elizabeth
aa#2098
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"I was born with a skeptical mind. Now I ask you, is that fair?
If God gives me a skeptical nature and you an accepting one, then
you're going to be a believer and I'm not. If belief is a ticket to
eternal happiness, I'm definitely handicapped. God gives me a mind
capable of asking questions and what? I'm damned if I use it?"
F. Paul Wilson "The Haunted Air"
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Del
ivan wrote:
> "Del" <jfa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:1124810169....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > SUPERIORS? Hahahahahaha... man, an ANT is superior to
> > > the whole bunch of you. Can you COMPREHEND that? An
> > > ANT!
> >
> > Looks like I struck a nerve. One wonders why "superior"
> > ants like yourself are compelled to hang around us.
> > Methinks you protest just a tiny bit too much.
>
> You need some sense...
Indeed, since I'm not getting any from you. Just
juvenile flammage of a very insipid and low quality.
Unfortunately having a lot of spare time as you
do only encourages the spew.
> which of course, you atheists
> do not have...
Of course not. Thomas Edison had no sense. Neither
did Luther Burbank. Or Einstein. But what a brilliant
guy YOU are.
> you ar e a flock of sheep without a dog
> to keep them together.
And you are a flock of sheep who pretends
you have an invisible dog named god that
keeps you together.
> > > Get a brain.
> >
> > Sez the logically challenged illiterate. Such amusing irony.
> > Are you always this stupid or is this a special occasion?
>
> Illiterate I may be, but that's because english is not my
> native language. And I haven't practiced it in a while...
> I mean, english...
You mean logic. So keep those excuses coming in.
>
> And I really don't care about YOUR logic.
Don't be so modest. You don't care about anyones
logic.
> Bcause that
> what you call logic I call word twisting...
And you think it is logical to believe that just pinning
labels on things--as you do here--means they are true.
But what else can you do when you can't back up your
hot-air claims? You MUST pretend. And pretend is
what you do.
>
> > >Then call me.
> >
> > Oh come on. You know you are compelled to hang around
> > us. You are hurt because you don't get the attention from
> > us you think you deserve. Quit sniveling about it.
>
> Attention? No. I'm just here to have some fun.
And attacking people is a "Christian" value and
how you have fun.
> > > Call 900-JESUS-SAVES.
> >
> > Hahahahaha! Looks like Jesus has failed horribly in your
> > case.
>
> Says an atheist!
I dare say that if there is a god, I, as an atheist, am less of an
embarrassment to him than an alleged believer such as you.
But we know there isn't a god since if there was, do you really
think he would allow people like you to represent him?
Inconceivable.
> Oh, YOU DO like Jesus, you just don't
> like the pope.
I don't like bullies, or in your case, bully wannabes.
> Well, yes mmmmyes...
You agree with yourself? How convenient.
>atheists would surely
> hail Jesus if he 'came'.
If Ivanhoe says it then it must be true.
> HE would die for YOUR sins...
So he's dead then? Or was it that Jesus just had a lousy
weekend for your sins?
> how convenient.
Hmmmm, now that you mention it....
>
> > > No, I am having lots of spare time,
> >
> > One of the advantages of being useless.
>
> Useless as in 'not contributing to this rotten society and
> working for a company, and paying taxes, and by that supporting
> wars overseas'?
No, just useless rationally. You think flammage is debate.
You think making assertions and then pretending to be
oh so certain about them is debate. Like I said. Useless.
> Yeah... if THAT is being 'useless' you can bet
> your ass I'm 'useless'.
I'd call that being a parasite, which is *worse* than useless.
If you're not working you're probably an illegal alien too,
right?
> > > so I thought 'why not'.
> >
> > It is very important to you that we believe your excuses of
> > why you are here. But the truth is obvious.
>
> Teach me... 'Del'...
Ok first lesson: Offer arguments (or be prepared to)
instead of mere assertions. Here is the difference:
1. You need some sense...
2. You need some sense because of [list reasons].
The first example is assertion. The second example
(when reasons are included) is an argument.
Clearly then argument is assertion plus reasons
offered to accept that assertion.
Can you explain to the class why it is important
to offer arguments instead of mere assertions?
> > > And unfortunately for human kind, there are many of you out there.
> >
> > That's why you are compelled to hang out in a.a.
>
> No. As I said, I'm here just have some fun. That's all.
>
> > > But hey... who gives a shit?
> >
> > You do, obviously.
>
> So do you, OBVIOUSLY!
You invade this thread in my ng. I did not come to you.
You came to me.
>
> > >You lost your souls, and now you're
> > > atheists. Fine by me.
> >
> > Jealousy is a sickness ivanhoe. We get your type here all
> > the time: cowardly wannabes who become hostile when
> > their bids for attention from their superiors are rejected.
> > They, like you, don't realize just how transparent they,
> > and you, are.
>
> So are you m8, SO ARE YOU...
Try using ALL CAPS for the whole sentence next time.
That's more convincing.
>
> > > But I really expected something better then
> > > your replies...
> >
> > See what I mean? Awww, did we hurt your feeli ngs? LOL!
>
> Nope.
Of course you'd say so if we did. LOL!
> > >I must admit, I don't get it all written down, and I am
> > > lacking experience in correspondence in english,
> >
> > Don't be so modest. I'm sure your ignorance transcends language
> > altogether.
>
> Yeah, I hear that a lot from the likes of you...
A word to the wise should be sufficient.So naturally
it failed here:
> but hey... I don't
> give a shit,
If you didn't give a shit you wouldn't care if I
knew you didn't give a shit or not. Yet you
obviously do care.
> cause you wanna know why? Both YOU and THEM
> lost your souls somewhere along the way... and THAT my dear
> Watson, is something ANYONE can see. Even if you just LOOK
> at someone, let alone making a conversation of any kind with them...
LOL!
>
> > > but hey... stoopid
> > > folks wondering what 'liek' means, or 'aks'...
> >
> > When you can't take responsibility for even your blatant
> > shortcomings it is a sign of rabid insecurity. Sorry that
> > being around atheists make you feel insecure.
>
> Responsibility?
Trouble with English again?
> Dude, just grow a brain, will ya?
More logical fallacy of the ad hominem variety. Have
you asked yourself why you need to rely on fallacies
to evade the issue I raise here? Notice that you DID
indeed evade my point.
>
> > Try improving yourself.
>
> I am. Here I am. Thank you for your time...
You don't sound sincere.
> I will be a much
> better person after this.
Now, now, don't be so cynical. You could improve
yourself if you wanted to. The, trouble however is as Plato
puts it:
"Neither do the ignorant seek after wisdom. For
herein is the evil of ignorance, that he who is
neither good nor wise is nevertheless satisfied with
himself: He has no desire for that of which he
feels no want."
> And will have more evidence of just how
> you atheists are stoopid...
A glittering generality and a good example of
bigotry. Want the definition? Here you go:
Bigotry
prejudice
These words refer to an unfair irrational or unexamined
attitude toward issues or people based on blanket
preconceptions.
Bigotry now refers almost exclusively to an intense
dislike or even violent hatred for a particular group,
race, or religion. The comparable use of prejudice
would indicate a similar but far less intense
predisposition against such a group. Bigotry almost
surely would be evidenced in unashamed public utterance
or behavior.
-- Hayakawa, S. I. (1978). Use The Right Word: Modern
guide to Synonyms and Related Words. New york:
Readers Digest Books.
Notice "Bigotry almost surely would be evidenced in
unashamed public utterance or behavior."
That's you, all right.
> and I must say again; you are as stoopid
> as some christian fundamentalist.
And you have a brilliant mind. Now we're both liars. Happy?
>
> > >shit... you must be veuy,
> > > veuy smart.
> >
> > >From your perspective I'm sure most people are.
> >
> > > The bunch of ya. Geeks. NO! Atheist geeks. Damn Bill!
> >
> > Good argument. Your inability to feel humiliated by the
> > half-witted rubbish you spew is a real gift.
>
> Humiliated? By the likes of YOU?
That problem with English again? I said humiliated by the
half-witted rubbish you spew (look again. you will see
I am right) Maybe you could get an adult to help you
read the posts for you.
> Hahahahaha... man,
> people are just plain vanilla stoopid.
Does that include people who can't comprehend a short sentence?
> AND scared. FEAR,
> my dear 'DEL', oozes thru your pores... and it is showing.
>
> A LOT!
You're so right. I'm shaking in my boots. Whatever
shall I do?
>
> > You may go now.
>
> Why? Cause YOU said so?
How else would you know what to do or
believe?
stoney
wrote:
>
>Greywolf wrote:
>
>> The problem is that the extremists within that faith have
>> co-opted it for their own odious reasons.
>
>Er...not exactly. The ``extremists'' have always been in charge;
>read up on the early history of the Church, then what
>happened when Rome adopted Christianity...the Dark Ages...American
>Christian attitudes towards slavery and the native peoples...what
>the Church did in WWII...Christian opposition to civil rights and
>gender equality...and everything done in the name of the Church
>today....
>
>Here's a good starting point:
>
> http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/winter.html
>
>Anybody who thinks that Christianity, even on balance, is and has
>been a force for good is either a dupe, completely ignorant of
>history, or a sociopath. Yes, there are good people who happen to
>be Christians, and there are good things done in the name of
>Christianity...but we got the Volkswagen, modern rocketry, and
>much of what we know about treating hypothermia from Hitler
>and the Nazis (including, of course, Porsche, von Braun, and
>Mengele). That doesn't make the Nazis any less evil.
>
>> What ends up happening is that while your attacking a Pat
>> Robertson-type 'thing' (I hesitate to use the word, 'Christian')
>> you end up attacking your grandma in the process. It is akin to
>> laying down an artillery barrage and ending up wounding innocent
>> civilians. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
>
>I know what you mean, but there's not a whole lot to be done about
>it. Grandma made her bed, and she has to lie in it.
>
>If it makes you feel better, there were a number of ``good''
>Germans in Germany in the thirties and forties, including many
>members of the Nazi party. They never would have done any of those
>things themselves; they just went along because people in power
>told them they had to, and because it was the thing to do. That
>they chose to participate rather than risk their own lives and
>fortunes for what was right, good, and just...well, they abandoned
>their own goodness for evil, no matter how distasteful they
>thought their position.
>
>You need to read up on Stanley Milgram. He most emphatically
>demonstrated how easy it is for ``good'' people to do the most
>horrendous things just by having an authority figure tell them
>they have to. And, you know what? In my book, that makes these
>``good'' people the most evil of all.
Exactly. Where's the 'good' in supporting the most heinous of
evils-the eternal torture of the dead, *especially* when it's a case
of 'blame the victim' based on an eons old script they must follow.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
nobody
>nobody wrote:
>> On 22 Aug 2005 16:46:59 -0700, "Del" <jfa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >nobody wrote:
>> >> "Greywolf" <grey...@cybrzn.com> wrote:
>> >> >"nobody" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote
>> >> You need to take a deep breath, calm down, take your medication, drink
>> >> some tea, whatever.
>> >If you can't defend your position, ad hominem
>> >is a rather obvious and poor substitute.
>> I didn't state a position other than pointing out that Greywolf seems
>> to need to mature in his way of thinkin g. What *other* position do you
>> fancy I am defending?
> "There's your problem, if, by virtue of being an atheist, you believe
> you are an intellectual and thus superior to the masses."
I said *other*. That's *the* position I said I already have, that is,
he needs to grow up out of a juvenile "I am the center of the world
and I know best" position.
Greywolf
behavior. But I wrote what I wrote and it's done with. I would just add
here, that you fundies scare me. When a Pat Robertson has got an army
of people like you, and a 'friend' in the White House, things are bad.
Really
bad. You people are seriously 'twisted.' There is no more reasoning with
people of your ilk than there is in reasoning with the people who make up
Al Qaeda. You are all 'birds of a feather.' It's just that you are on
opposite
sides. And I fear that your combined hatred and intolerance is only going to
lead to a world-wide calamity. You and your, 'God.' They and their, 'Allah.'
You people are just plain crazy.
I started out this post talking about how bad I felt about attacking 'good'
Christians. The responses have now convinced me that there is no such
thing as a 'good' Christian. At his or hers core is a belief that is so
idiotic as
to defy reason. Anyone who promotes such horrible crap is not 'good' - at
least not in *my* book. That person is deluded and is trying to brainwash
others into sharing their vile delusion. And otherwise intelligent people
swallow
such crap, 'hook, line, and sinker.' I just can't believe it. How stupid can
a
person get?
Greywolf
Del
Greywolf wrote:
[...]
> I started out this post talking about how bad I felt about attacking 'good'
> Christians. The responses have now convinced me that there is no such
> thing as a 'good' Christian.
Come on. Don't let this useless troll polarize you. You
aren't reacting to Christians here. There is nothing
"Christian" about him, or about 99% of the invaders to
a.a. who call themselves Christian. It is a capital mistake
to judge Christians based on the dregs who navigate
themselves to a.a. Your original post was well considered
and you got hit by extremists from both sides because of it.
That should tell you something right there. There should
be a lot more atheists here with your attitude and that's the
truth I'd like to believe that there is more--a lot more--to
being an atheist than to become a mirror image of intolerant
closed minded bigot like ivan the hoe.
The easiest thing in the world is to become polarized due to
confronting these assholes and turning into what you dislike-
-to fight fire with fire. In fact all you have to do is not resist
it and it will happen. But you owe it to yourself to resist.
Judging an entire group negatively based on the behavior of
a few practically defines the term bigotry. Is that really who
you are? I don't think so.
Ciao
Michael Gray
wrote:
:
>I started out this post talking about how bad I felt about attacking 'good'
>Christians. The responses have now convinced me that there is no such
>thing as a 'good' Christian. At his or hers core is a belief that is so
>idiotic as
>to defy reason. Anyone who promotes such horrible crap is not 'good' - at
>least not in *my* book. That person is deluded and is trying to brainwash
>others into sharing their vile delusion. And otherwise intelligent people
>swallow
>such crap, 'hook, line, and sinker.' I just can't believe it. How stupid can
>a
>person get?
>
>Greywolf
Yep, that just about sums up what I said near the start of this
thread.
I regard them all as thoroughly dangerous delusionals, criminally
complicit in outrageous immorality, either by passive acquiescence, or
direct contribution.
"Ivan" the terrible is not the worst example by a long shot. but
generally illustrative of their mental infections, nonetheless.
Q: Why do I take an instant dislike to Christians?
A: It saves time.
Pasta Pastor Michael.
COTFSM.
Del
nobody wrote:
> On 23 Aug 2005 08:23:47 -0700, "Del" <jfa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >nobody wrote:
> >> On 22 Aug 2005 16:46:59 -0700, "Del" <jfa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> >nobody wrote:
> >> >> "Greywolf" <grey...@cybrzn.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> You need to take a deep breath, calm down, take your medication, drink
> >> >> some tea, whatever.
>
> >> >If you can't defend your position, ad hominem
> >> >is a rather obvious and poor substitute.
>
> >> I didn't state a position other than pointing out that Greywolf seems
> >> fancy I am defending?
First, I didn't say you were defending any position.
Just the opposite, actually. When faced with a
response you didn't like, you came back with
more personal attack: "You need to take a deep
breath, calm down, take your medication, drink
some tea, whatever." Note: even if what you say
was true (and you offer no evidence that it was)
it doesn't mean that GW was wrong, or even that
you were right. That's because ad hominem is a
fallacy of irrelevance. It avoids the issue to
instead attack the messenger.
>
> > "There's your problem, if, by virtue of being an atheist, you believe
> > you are an intellectual and thus superior to the masses."
>
> I said *other*. That's *the* position I said I already have,
Oh. Is that position sacred or something?
that is,
> he needs to grow up out of a juvenile "I am the center of the world
> and I know best" position.
Looks like a case of projection to me. ¿
Del
nobody wrote:
> Michael Gray <fle...@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:
> >On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 04:55:28 GMT, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >>"Greywolf" <grey...@cybrzn.com> wrote:
>
> >>[...]
> >>>what? I am clueless here. I wonder: Is there a day coming when the
> >>>intellectuals of the world rise up together, and in force (ala the ID versus
> >>[...]
>
> >>the case, getting off your high horse and recognizing your place in
> >>society will go a long way towards integration and contentness.
>
>
> I have no compaints about my place. Thanks for your concern.
>
> >Oh, I just realised that your name tells everyone.
>
> You must have extraordinary powers then, for I cannot, for the life of
> me, by just looking at the words "Michael Gray" (if that is your real
> name), tell your place in society.
>
> >Sorry to bother you Mr. nobody.
>
> No worries. Just try to come up with something with actual content
> next time.
So you can respond with: "You need to take a deep breath, calm
down, take your medication, drink some tea, whatever"?
r
ivan
"Greywolf" <grey...@cybrzn.com> wrote in message news:11gnmed...@corp.supernews.com...
> After I posted, I could have kicked myself in the head. That was juvenile
> behavior. But I wrote what I wrote and it's done with. I would just add
> here, that you fundies scare me. When a Pat Robertson has got an army
> of people like you, and a 'friend' in the White House, things are bad.
> Really
> bad. You people are seriously 'twisted.' There is no more reasoning with
> people of your ilk than there is in reasoning with the people who make up
> Al Qaeda. You are all 'birds of a feather.' It's just that you are on
> opposite
> sides. And I fear that your combined hatred and intolerance is only going to
> lead to a world-wide calamity. You and your, 'God.' They and their, 'Allah.'
> You people are just plain crazy.
> I started out this post talking about how bad I felt about attacking 'good'
> Christians. The responses have now convinced me that there is no such
> thing as a 'good' Christian. At his or hers core is a belief that is so
> idiotic as
> to defy reason. Anyone who promotes such horrible crap is not 'good' - at
> least not in *my* book. That person is deluded and is trying to brainwash
> others into sharing their vile delusion. And otherwise intelligent people
> swallow
> such crap, 'hook, line, and sinker.' I just can't believe it. How stupid can
> a
> person get?
I'm not christian, and I don't live in the good ol' USofA.
God bless you...
ivan
> > You need some sense...
>
> Indeed, since I'm not getting any from you. Just
> juvenile flammage of a very insipid and low quality.
> Unfortunately having a lot of spare time as you
> do only encourages the spew.
Well, that is your opinion. You are entitled to it.
I don't respect it, but hey... have phun...
> > which of course, you atheists
> > do not have...
>
> Of course not. Thomas Edison had no sense. Neither
> did Luther Burbank. Or Einstein. But what a brilliant
> guy YOU are.
Yeah, they were really really great...Tesla for instance.
Yeah, sure. I puke when I hear about 'human achievements',
the 'spirit those people had', 'making this world a better place'...
While people are dying, I don't give a flying fuck about
Tesla, Einstein, Edison... or any of them. Catch my drift?
Getting the point?
> > you ar e a flock of sheep without a dog
> > to keep them together.
>
> And you are a flock of sheep who pretends
> you have an invisible dog named god that
> keeps you together.
See... dog<-->god. Hm... like evil<-->live.
Their God doesn't keep me together. Jesus
keeps me together. Unlike your 'flock'... who
doesn't even have someone to keep you together.
But hey, as I said... no soul, no sense, no belief... no hope.
> > > > Get a brain.
> > >
> > > Sez the logically challenged illiterate. Such amusing irony.
> > > Are you always this stupid or is this a special occasion?
> >
> > Illiterate I may be, but that's because english is not my
> > native language. And I haven't practiced it in a while...
> > I mean, english...
>
> You mean logic. So keep those excuses coming in.
No, my english.
> > And I really don't care about YOUR logic.
>
> Don't be so modest. You don't care about anyones
> logic.
Nope. Just yours...
> > Bcause that
> > what you call logic I call word twisting...
>
> And you think it is logical to believe that just pinning
> labels on things--as you do here--means they are true.
> But what else can you do when you can't back up your
> hot-air claims? You MUST pretend. And pretend is
> what you do.
Back up? I need to back up 'things' such as... poor people
are dying. It's your fault, mine fault, politicians' fault... fault
of the system... rich wanna control the Universe... atheists
are a bunch of (more or less) soulless people, who attack
others because they wanna break their spirit. Or, 9/11 smells
fishy. Or, Moon is smaller than Sun. Or or or... circle repeats.
In every thing, matter... you mean, those 'things'? For example...
> > > Oh come on. You know you are compelled to hang around
> > > us. You are hurt because you don't get the attention from
> > > us you think you deserve. Quit sniveling about it.
> >
> > Attention? No. I'm just here to have some fun.
>
> And attacking people is a "Christian" value and
> how you have fun.
As I said, it is YOUR value too. So stfu.
> > > > Call 900-JESUS-SAVES.
> > >
> > > Hahahahaha! Looks like Jesus has failed horribly in your
> > > case.
> >
> > Says an atheist!
>
> I dare say that if there is a god, I, as an atheist, am less of an
> embarrassment to him than an alleged believer such as you.
God loves you too. So they say...
> But we know there isn't a god since if there was, do you really
> think he would allow people like you to represent him?
> Inconceivable.
Yup. He would. Why not? He let's you judge me if I am
competent to represent 'him'. Or whatever...
You are just another idiot who thinks; there is no god, because
if there was god why would he allow murders, wars, poverty...
And likes of you just don't get it. And atheism is just another
pityful excuse for people to run away from responsibilities and
guilt BECAUSE of wars, hunger, poverty, injustice etc etc...
WHY would god stop wars? People are the ones who have
duty and responsibility to stop to war. But no... they rather pray,
talk shit, become atheists... or whatever.
As I said, you, my dear oh so dear 'Del' are just like them
hardkor priests, or fundamental christians, jews, muslims...
you ain't different from them. Not a bit. They preach God,
you prech noGod. On the bottom of it, you are; SAME!
Very much alike.
> > Oh, YOU DO like Jesus, you just don't
> > like the pope.
>
> I don't like bullies, or in your case, bully wannabes.
Bullies? Look yourself in the mirror dude...
> > Well, yes mmmmyes...
>
> You agree with yourself? How convenient.
Nope.
> >atheists would surely
> > hail Jesus if he 'came'.
>
> If Ivanhoe says it then it must be true.
No, if YOU say it, then it must be true. At least, you
are more eloquent than I am, and you 'use' logic in yer
statements. Huh, chump...
> > HE would die for YOUR sins...
>
> So he's dead then? Or was it that Jesus just had a lousy
> weekend for your sins?
Nope. For yours, and the likes of yours, mostly.
> > how convenient.
>
> Hmmmm, now that you mention it....
So?
> > > > No, I am having lots of spare time,
> > >
> > > One of the advantages of being useless.
> >
> > Useless as in 'not contributing to this rotten society and
> > working for a company, and paying taxes, and by that supporting
> > wars overseas'?
>
> No, just useless rationally. You think flammage is debate.
> You think making assertions and then pretending to be
> oh so certain about them is debate. Like I said. Useless.
Flammage? Man, if you want to 'debate' join the debate
team, learn the rules of debating, and go for it... and I don't
make 'assertions'. You just THINK my words are 'assertions'.
See, you and me are much alike... hahahahahaha... puts!
> > Yeah... if THAT is being 'useless' you can bet
> > your ass I'm 'useless'.
>
> I'd call that being a parasite, which is *worse* than useless.
> If you're not working you're probably an illegal alien too,
> right?
Parasite? Oh, another one, from civilized society who shits
on the unemployed... wow... sign of our times. Lookie here,
you are smart so you'll prolly gonna figure this one out;
DUKE IS DEAD! If you don't get it, ask me, and I will
explain it to you, mmkay? Ok. Good.
> > > > so I thought 'why not'.
> > >
> > > It is very important to you that we believe your excuses of
> > > why you are here. But the truth is obvious.
> >
> > Teach me... 'Del'...
>
> Ok first lesson: Offer arguments (or be prepared to)
> instead of mere assertions. Here is the difference:
Arguments? Go buy something. And use your brain.
Or, switch the TV on. And use your brain. See... arguments?
I'm not here to MAKE you believe in something. People
use 'arguments' cause they usually wanna MAKE someone
believe what they say. I had a lot of opportunities to correspond
with people who think they are smart, educated, refined, polite
and 'above the rest' because of these 'qualities' they possessed,
and most of them always talked about 'arguments'. This ain't
no fucking trial, usenet is no fucking court room. If you're going
to slander me because you think that I should use 'arguments'
when talking to you, then you need yer brain checked. If you
do not understand what I say, then say it... don't be a word
twister and a hypocrite...trying to deminish what I say, just beacuse
you are prolly more educated than me, or you have more experience
in conversations, correspondence. Whatever...
I speak honestly, I don't twist the words, I speak fairly understandable,
by both educated and non educated people. And that is, really, my
problem. Because then, educated and 'all for the arguments' people
get attacked, offended... and most of people, in my case, get the picture
that I'm the one who knows all. Well, I don't know all, but I know very
much. Get it, git? Good.
> 1. You need some sense...
>
>
> 2. You need some sense because of [list reasons].
>
> The first example is assertion. The second example
> (when reasons are included) is an argument.
>
> Clearly then argument is assertion plus reasons
> offered to accept that assertion.
>
> Can you explain to the class why it is important
> to offer arguments instead of mere assertions?
Because you say so. End of message.
> > > > And unfortunately for human kind, there are many of you out there.
> > >
> > > That's why you are compelled to hang out in a.a.
> >
> > No. As I said, I'm here just have some fun. That's all.
> >
> > > > But hey... who gives a shit?
> > >
> > > You do, obviously.
> >
> > So do you, OBVIOUSLY!
>
> You invade this thread in my ng. I did not come to you.
> You came to me.
YOUR ng? Wow... like, you OWN this ng? You OWN
usenet? Sorry, you didn't tell me that piece of information.
> > > >You lost your souls, and now you're
> > > > atheists. Fine by me.
> > >
> > > Jealousy is a sickness ivanhoe. We get your type here all
> > > the time: cowardly wannabes who become hostile when
> > > their bids for attention from their superiors are rejected.
> > > They, like you, don't realize just how transparent they,
> > > and you, are.
> >
> > So are you m8, SO ARE YOU...
>
> Try using ALL CAPS for the whole sentence next time.
> That's more convincing.
Cool... another example of your slander...
> > > > But I really expected something better then
> > > > your replies...
> > >
> > > See what I mean? Awww, did we hurt your feeli ngs? LOL!
> >
> > Nope.
>
> Of course you'd say so if we did. LOL!
I would. I'm not a hypocrite like yourself. And hide my
feelings. And then... you know... yeah... you... know what
happens then. Atheist have a good perception what goes next
after someone hurts your feelings, and they keep their feelings
all bottled up inside...
> > > >I must admit, I don't get it all written down, and I am
> > > > lacking experience in correspondence in english,
> > >
> > > Don't be so modest. I'm sure your ignorance transcends language
> > > altogether.
> >
> > Yeah, I hear that a lot from the likes of you...
>
> A word to the wise should be sufficient.So naturally
> it failed here:
:
> > but hey... I don't
> > give a shit,
>
> If you didn't give a shit you wouldn't care if I
> knew you didn't give a shit or not. Yet you
> obviously do care.
I care. For some things...
> > cause you wanna know why? Both YOU and THEM
> > lost your souls somewhere along the way... and THAT my dear
> > Watson, is something ANYONE can see. Even if you just LOOK
> > at someone, let alone making a conversation of any kind with them...
>
> LOL!
Yeah... funny how that made you laugh.
> > > > but hey... stoopid
> > > > folks wondering what 'liek' means, or 'aks'...
> > >
> > > When you can't take responsibility for even your blatant
> > > shortcomings it is a sign of rabid insecurity. Sorry that
> > > being around atheists make you feel insecure.
> >
> > Responsibility?
>
> Trouble with English again?
No.
> > Dude, just grow a brain, will ya?
>
> More logical fallacy of the ad hominem variety. Have
> you asked yourself why you need to rely on fallacies
> to evade the issue I raise here? Notice that you DID
> indeed evade my point.
Don't use latin. You didn't study latin. It's just a facade.
In your case. Did you learn latin? I doubt it. Ye amerikans
are dumb... you don't know the difference between perfect
and passive...
> > > Try improving yourself.
> >
> > I am. Here I am. Thank you for your time...
>
> You don't sound sincere.
Why? Cause you think so?
> > I will be a much
> > better person after this.
>
> Now, now, don't be so cynical. You could improve
> yourself if you wanted to. The, trouble however is as Plato
> puts it:
Plato? Wow... you must be veuy veuy smart...
>
> "Neither do the ignorant seek after wisdom. For
> herein is the evil of ignorance, that he who is
> neither good nor wise is nevertheless satisfied with
> himself: He has no desire for that of which he
> feels no want."
Wow... beautiful... great man... great society...
great and magnificent culture... sure...
> > And will have more evidence of just how
> > you atheists are stoopid...
>
> A glittering generality and a good example of
> bigotry. Want the definition? Here you go:
If anyone is biggot, then that is YOU. And you know why.
>
> Bigotry
> prejudice
>
> These words refer to an unfair irrational or unexamined
> attitude toward issues or people based on blanket
> preconceptions.
>
> Bigotry now refers almost exclusively to an intense
> dislike or even violent hatred for a particular group,
> race, or religion. The comparable use of prejudice
> would indicate a similar but far less intense
> predisposition against such a group. Bigotry almost
> surely would be evidenced in unashamed public utterance
> or behavior.
> -- Hayakawa, S. I. (1978). Use The Right Word: Modern
> guide to Synonyms and Related Words. New york:
> Readers Digest Books.
>
> Notice "Bigotry almost surely would be evidenced in
> unashamed public utterance or behavior."
>
> That's you, all right.
Yeah, you too.
> > and I must say again; you are as stoopid
> > as some christian fundamentalist.
>
> And you have a brilliant mind. Now we're both liars. Happy?
No. You don't lie. You are just an atheist. You have moral
values encoded in yer DNA. Sky high moral values...
> > > >shit... you must be veuy,
> > > > veuy smart.
> > >
> > > >From your perspective I'm sure most people are.
> > >
> > > > The bunch of ya. Geeks. NO! Atheist geeks. Damn Bill!
> > >
> > > Good argument. Your inability to feel humiliated by the
> > > half-witted rubbish you spew is a real gift.
> >
> > Humiliated? By the likes of YOU?
>
> That problem with English again? I said humiliated by the
> half-witted rubbish you spew (look again. you will see
> I am right) Maybe you could get an adult to help you
> read the posts for you.
Yes... I see... if you are not humiliated by your rubbish, why
should I be humiliated with my rubbish?
> > Hahahahaha... man,
> > people are just plain vanilla stoopid.
>
> Does that include people who can't comprehend a short sentence?
Maybe. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
> > AND scared. FEAR,
> > my dear 'DEL', oozes thru your pores... and it is showing.
> >
> > A LOT!
>
> You're so right. I'm shaking in my boots. Whatever
> shall I do?
Pray. Pfffffffff...
> > > You may go now.
> >
> > Why? Cause YOU said so?
>
> How else would you know what to do or
> believe?
Well... can I see some references? Where did you
go to college? University? Thank you...
ivan
"Auntie Lib" <walle...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1124826609....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Guys, guys! Don't be mean to poor little ivan. Your hearts will be
> touched when you realize that he has yet to make it out of the fourth
> grade (for the third time) and it frustrates him. He *really* wants to
> learn how to spell the word "like" but they don't teach it 'til the
> fifth grade. What's a fuckwit to do with that sort of handicap but
> bother grownups on Usenet?
>
> Go easy on him. He's unarmed.
Oh, chikied chick, you are sooo ironic. Hey, when you
fail your fifth grade, I'll be your boyfriend. K? Cool...
nobody
>nobody wrote:
>> On 23 Aug 2005 08:23:47 -0700, "Del" <jfa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >nobody wrote:
>> >> On 22 Aug 2005 16:46:59 -0700, "Del" <jfa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >> >nobody wrote:
>> >> >> "Greywolf" <grey...@cybrzn.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >"nobo dy" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote
>> >> >> You need to take a deep breath, calm down, take your medication, drink
>> >> >> some tea, whatever.
>> >> >If you can't defend your position, ad hominem
>> >> >is a rather obvious and poor substitute.
>> >> I didn't state a position other than pointing out that Greywolf seems
>> >> to need to mature in his way of thinking. What *other* position do you
>> >> fancy I am defending?
>First, I didn't say you were defending any position.
Let's see, what does "If you can't defend your position" imply? In all
non-Outer-Limit situations, it implies that at the very least I would
wish to defend, or trying to defend a position.
True, though. I am not defending any position. I am stating a
position. I am not arguing with Greywolf, I'm telling him what I think
his problem is. To heed my advice or not is his choice. Now, what's
*your* problem?
>Just the opposite, actually. When faced with a
> response you didn't like, you came back with
>more personal attack: "You need to take a deep
>breath, calm down, take your medication, drink
>some tea, whatever." Note: even if what you say
> was true (and you offer no evidence that it was)
> it doesn't mean that GW was wrong, or even that
> you were right. That's because ad hominem is a
> fallacy of irrelevance. It avoids the issue to
>instead attack the messenger.
Oh goodie, another fool who thinks having read and memorized the long
online list of fallacies makes him a lesser fool!
Now, is *that* an ad hominem? You bet! Is it true? Of course.
>> > "There's your problem, if, by virtue of being an atheist, you believe
>> > you are an intellectual and thus superior to the masses."
>> I said *other*. That's *the* position I said I already have,
>Oh. Is that position sacred or something?
No. It's just that you seem to be incapable of comprehension beyond
the most elementary pattern matching.
nobody
>nobody wrote:
>> No worries. Just try to come up with something with actual content
>> next time.
>So you can respond with: "You need to take a deep breath, calm
> down, take your medication, drink some tea, whatever"?
Yes, that's damn good advice for someone with his kind of disturbance,
if you ask me.
Greywolf
general disrespect atheists get. But it got me to thinking about
the JW plumber who, upon being made aware of my plight (my
home [mysteriously] burned down last October), came here with
his own well-pump and hooked into my old well 'line' - without
charging me a dime, or giving me any real 'Jesus' sermon. (This,
occurred just this last month.)
Now, that to me, demonstrated the behavior of what I have come to
perceive as a 'good' Christian. I even typed out, 'God bless you,
Mr. _________!" Not because I believe in God, ( I most certainly
do not.) But it was a way of expressing my genuine appreciation
for what he did, in a way that he would truly appreciate. (If that's
considered being a 'phony,' tough. It's just a nice gesture, in my
book.) Anyway, I also believe what Michael Gray has said to be
true. Even a good, well-intentioned Christian has a core belief that
is thoroughly unsound. And, of course, he or she is entitled to that
belief. But as we now see, people who are a little more 'enthusiastic,'
shall we say, about their faith, are just doing their best to force their
belief-system down our throats - and they don't care how they go
about doing it either. They are unscrupulous, dishonest, unethical, and
immoral at times. They don't play fair, but they expect to be fairly
treated. I can't stand them. And so I will continue to treat people like
the JW humanitarian with a great deal of respect. But at the same time,
I will attack their belief-system. Their is no real room for compromise.
The whole attitude surrounding Christianity is, 'If you ain't with us, your
agin' us." And I don't like it. It is a psychological disease of some sort -
at least to *my* mind it is.
Lastly. I must add that it has become apparent that *somebody* has
tried to get the JW to take back his well-pump. How's *that* for being
a compassionate neighbor? And I still do not have water running into
the trailer home I was forced to hastily purchase. And why is that?
Because a water line underneath the trailer is cracked. And who sold
me the trailer home in this condition? Why a Christian, of course! Who
else?
Greywolf
Del
But unless you demonstrate some ability to grasp the precepts
I am revealing to you, it will also end here.
ivan wrote:
> "Del" <jfa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:1124831713.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > You need some sense...
> >
> > Indeed, since I'm not getting any from you. Just
> > juvenile flammage of a very insipid a nd low quality.
> > Unfortunately having a lot of spare time as you
> > do only encourages the spew.
>
> Well, that is your opinion.
Hahahahahaha. You say this as if you thought all opinion
had equal value. It doesn't and uninformed opinion is especially
worthless. What is amusingly hypocritical here is that you
like to pretend that your uninformed opinion is indisputable
"Truth."
> You are entitled to it.
> I don't respect it,
Margaritas ante porcos (If you know anyone with an education
ask him to explain to you what this means)
>but hey... have phun...
Squelching obtuse hypocrites is almost too much fun. I
feel guilty about it, as if I am beating up on someone
with a childs brain in an adult body. Unless you need
to gain sympathy for yourself please try a little harder to
defend your position.
> > > which of course, you atheists
> > > do not have...
> >
> > Of course not. Thomas Edison had no sense. Neither
> > did Luther Burbank. Or Einstein. But what a brilliant
> > guy YOU are.
>
> Yeah, they were really really great...
Each one an atheist who had more sense than 10,000
of your ilk.
> Tesla for instance.
Tesla was an atheist too?
> Yeah, sure. I puke when I hear about 'human achievements',
Because of how insignificant you are compared to
them? Aye, the grapes be mighty sour, eh, laddie?
> the 'spirit those people had', 'making this world a better place'...
Whining even as you take ungrateful advantage of their
brilliance. Tsk, tsk
> While people are dying,
Now there is a real non-sequitor for you. As if there was
ever a time when people weren't "dying."
> I don't give a flying fuck about
> Tesla, Einstein, Edison... or any of them.
Since you can't or won't improve yourself, you
find utility in attempting to drag everyone else
down to your level of insignificance? Does that
make you feel better about your wasted life?
Hey, "people are dying." What have *you* done
about it? Call atheists a bunch of names?
> Catch my drift?
> Getting the point?
I sure do. You need to change the subject STAT because I
embarrassed you again. You said atheists lack sense and I
proved your bigotry not just wrong, but ineptly,
and laughably wrong: Edison, Burbank, Einstein, lack sense?
Hahahahaha!
But your massive insecurities won't allow you to
admit to this or to any of your other many errors.
Thus you must take off on an tangent from the
point that YOU brought up, in order to try to save
face. Now don't you think _that's_ funny?
> > > you ar e a flock of sheep without a dog
> > > to keep them together.
> >
> > And you are a flock of sheep who pretends
> > you have an invisible dog named god that
> > keeps you together.
>
> See... dog<-->god. Hm... like evil<-->live.
>
> Their God doesn't keep me together. Jesus
> keeps me together.
So it is the fault of Jesus that you make so many
foolish blunders?
> Unlike your 'flock'... who
> doesn't even have someone to keep you together.
Adults don't generally need baby sitters, especially
not imaginary ones.
>
> But hey, as I said... no soul, no sense, no belief... no hope.
A perfect example of what I mean when I say:
"What is amusingly hypocritical here is that you like to
pretend that your uninformed opinion is indisputable 'Truth.'"
People like you who chronically make claims they
can't support are often addicted to posturing of the
kind we see you do here: feigning certainty in their
hot-air assertions. They offer up this phony attitude
projection in lieu of evidence--which they don't have.
That you do this is bad enough. But that you seem to
think it is clever is pathetic.
>
> > > > > Get a brain.
> > > >
> > > > Sez the logically challenged illiterate. Such amusing irony.
> > > > Are you always this stupid or is this a special occasion?
> > >
> > > Illiterate I may be, but that's because english is not my
> > > native language. And I haven't practiced it in a while...
> > > I mean, english...
> >
> > You mean logic. So keep those excuses coming in.
>
> No, my english.
Yes, and you were dropped on your head as a baby one
too many times. And the dog ate your homework.
Like I said, keep those excuses coming in.
>
> > > And I really don't care about YOUR logic.
> >
> > Don't be so modest. You don't care about anyones
> > logic.
>
> Nope. Just yours...
No, I am right and the evidence of that is the comprehensive
ignorance of logic you reveal when you say "YOUR logic."
We both know that you can't show that "my" logic differs
from logic in general. So once again One again you make
a claim you are impotent to support. It seems to be a way
of life for you.
>
> > > Bcause that
> > > what you call logic I call word twisting...
> >
> > And you think it is logical to believe that just pinning
> > labels on things--as you do here--means they are true.
> > But what else can you do when you can't back up your
> > hot-air claims? You MUST pretend. And pretend is
> > what you do.
Watch Ivan's evasion of what I said, above, dear friends:
>
> Back up? I need to back up 'things' such as... poor people
> are dying.
No goofy. You need to back up 'things" like "what you
call logic I call word twisting..." and "You need some
sense..." and "atheists are a bunch of ... people, who
attack others because they wanna break their spirit," etc.,
etc., etc. But we both know you are helpless to back up
your claims and we both know why you are. But maybe
I'm giving you too much credit.
And the evasion continues:
It's your fault, mine fault, politicians' fault... fault
> of the system... rich wanna control the Universe... atheists
> are a bunch of (more or less) soulless people, who attack
> others because they wanna break their spirit. Or, 9/11 smells
> fishy. Or, Moon is smaller than Sun. Or or or... circle repeats.
> In every thing, matter... you mean, those 'things'? For example...
"For example" take the statement: "atheists
are a bunch of (more or less) soulless people, who attack
others because they wanna break their spirit."
Notice that Ivan the hoe goes out of *his* way to come
to alt.atheism--It was *not* atheists who came to him.
Notice that it was Ivan the hoe who initiated attacks
on atheists here. And yet he has the absurd gall to snivel
about atheists attacking others! Now THAT is funny!
If hypocrisy was an Olympic event Ivan could be captain
of the team.
Notice also that Ivan the hoe totally avoids my main point:
"And you think it is logical to believe that just pinning
labels on things--as you do here--means they are true."
Ivan the hoe evades this point because it is true. He thinks
that calling someone a name--trying to pin a label on
someone--means that the label is true. In reality, pinning
labels on people on line--labels one has no intention of
offering evidence for--is dishonest and cowardly. Ivan the
hoe would NEVER say these things to somebodies face
in a bar or on the street. He knows he would get his ass
kicked or worse: sued.
Contd
.
Del
ivan wrote:
> "Del" <jfa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:1124831713.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > > Oh come on. You know you are compelled to hang around
> > > > us. You are hurt because you don't get the attention from
> > > > us you think you deserve. Quit sniveling about it.
> > >
> > > Attention? No. I'm just here to have some fun.
> >
> > And attacking p eople is a "Christian" value and
> > how you have fun.
>
> As I said,
And since Ivan can't defend any of his accusations he
pretends that if he says somethiung it must be true. It
must be hell being such an intellectual lightweight. No
wonder you resent your intellectual and moral superiors.
> it is YOUR value too. So stfu.
Hahahahahaha! So you follow what you claim are ATHEIST
VALUES then? Hey, knock it off. I don't need any help
in eviserating you.
>
> > > > > Call 900-JESUS-SAVES.
> > > >
> > > > Hahahahaha! Looks like Jesus has failed horribly in your
> > > > case.
> > >
> > > Says an atheist!
> >
> > I dare say that if there is a god, I, as an atheist, am less of an
> > embarrassment to him than an alleged believer such as you.
>
> God loves you too. So they say...
Keep running away from my points Ivan. No one notices
it at all. No, really. No one at all.
>
> > But we know there isn't a god since if there was, do you really
> > th ink he would allow people like you to represent him?
> > Inconceivable.
>
> Yup. He would. Why not?
It sounds like you don't read your posts either. I can't blame
you for that, as embarrassing as they must be for you. But
not doing so keeps you even more ignorant than you are
naturally.
Why not? Let's see. Because you are dishonest. Because
you are evasive. Because you are ignorant of logic and debate
ethics--and I am being generous here. I could assume that
you practice these things consciously and intentionally.
> He let's you judge me if I am
> competent to represent 'him'. Or whatever...
>
> You are just another idiot who thinks; there is no god, because
> if the re was god why would he allow murders, wars, poverty...
Ivan can't defend his own claims so he thinks he can evade
doing so by telling me what I believe instead. But once
again we are back to Ivan's powerlessness to defend even
this claim.
You haven't got a clue about what I believe. Pretending
that you do is just another example of your contempt
for the precepts of the religion you claim to embrace.
> And likes of you just don't get it. And atheism is just another
> pityful excuse for people to run away from responsibilities and
> guilt BECAUSE of wars, hunger, poverty, injustice etc etc...
Really? Got any evidence for this claim of yours? Any
at all? No? So why should anyone take your accusations
seriously? Can you at least answer THAT question?
>
> WHY would god stop wars? People are the ones who have
> duty and responsibility to stop to war.
Ivan, Ivan, Ivan. Don't you think about the implications
of what you say? If this was the attitude of your imagined
god, then you are also saying that "God" doesn't answer
prayers either. Why would he? People have a duty and
responsibility to solve their own problems.
However natural disasters are not man made and yet your
"God" doesn't prevent them. Why does he allow
earthquakes to kill millions of people over the centuries?
Will this be another inconvenient question you will
evade? Either your "God" can't prevent these murderous
events or he doesn't give a shit about the innocent lives
he allows to suffer and die because of them. Go ahead,
Ivan, rationalize that. I won't hold my breath waiting for
you to.
But no... they rather pray,
> talk shit, become atheists... or whatever.
>
> As I said,
What you assert carries no more weight than moon light.
you, my dear oh so dear 'Del' are just like them
> hardkor priests, or fundamental christians, jews, muslims...
> you ain't different from them. Not a bit. They preach God,
> you prech noGod. On the bottom of it, you are; SAME!
> Very much alike.
Now if only you had a lick of evidence for your hot-air claims....
>
> > > Oh, YOU DO like Jesus, you just don't
> > > like the pope.
> >
> > I don't like bullies, or in your case, bully wannabes.
>
> Bullies?
No bully wannabe.
> Look yourself in the mirror dude...
Oh, did I come to alt.hypocritical.christian to attack
you? Or did you come to alt.atheism to attack atheists?
Why is it that the best you can say to the charges
against you is "you're one too"? Do you think that gets
you off the hook? It happens to be a logical fallacy,
buddy boy. The name of it is tu quoque. Look it up. PS,
if that was "my" logic you wouldn't find any references
to it on the net. So look it up and see whose logic you
violate. I dare ya. Put up or shut up, slick. LOL!
>
> > > Well, yes mmmmyes...
> >
> > You agree with yourself? How convenient.
>
> Nope.
So you admit that you don't even agree with yourself
then. Hey, it looks like my efforts to educate you are
beginning to have results!
>
> > >atheists would surely
> > > hail Jesus if he 'came'.
> >
> > If Ivanhoe says it then it must be true.
>
> No, if YOU say it, then it must be true.
Yes, because I can back up what I say and you
can't. By golly, I *am* having an impact!
However, you are still being evasive. You see, merely
tossing the charges back at me is evasion. You can't deal
with what I say and so you try to change the subject to
me instead. It is another example of the tu quoque fallacy.
Want me to prove it? All you gotta do is ask.
>
> > > HE would die for YOUR sins...
> >
> > So he's dead then? Or was it that Jesus just had a lousy
> > weekend for your sins?
>
> Nope.
So he didn't die? Make up your mind.
> For yours, and the likes of yours, mostly.
He had a lousy weekend for my sins, but not yours?
>
> > > how convenient.
> >
> > Hmmmm, now that you mention it....
>
> So?
>
> > > > > No, I am having lots of spare time,
> > > >
> > > > One of the advantages of being useless.
> > >
> > > Useless as in 'not contributing to this rotten society and
> > > working for a company, and paying taxes, and by that supporting
> > > wars overseas'?
> >
> > No, just useless rationally. You think flammage is debate.
> > You think making assertions and then pretending to be
> > oh so certain about them is debate. Like I said. Useless.
>
> Flammage? Man, if you want to 'debate' join the debate
> team, learn the rules of debating, and go for it... and I don't
> make 'assertions'.
How ironic: "I don't make 'assertions" is also an assertion.
> You just THINK my words are 'assertions'.
Assertion: Something declared or stated positively, often
with no support or attempt at proof
-- The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
Don't play dumb. People won't think you
are playing.
> See, you and me are much alike...
As much as lightening is to a lightening bug.
>hahahahahaha... puts!
>
> > > Yeah... if THAT is being 'useless' you can bet
> > > your ass I'm 'useless'.
> >
> > I'd call that being a parasite, which is *worse* than useless.
> > If you're not working you're probably an illegal alien too,
> > right?
>
> Parasite? Oh, another one, from civilized society who shits
> on the unemployed...
Changing the subject every time you can't defend against an
accusation is a bad habit to get into. It is also dishonest.
> wow... sign of our times. Lookie here,
> you are smart so you'll prolly gonna figure this one out;
> DUKE IS DEAD! If you don't get it, ask me, and I will
> explain it to you, mmkay? Ok. Good.
So you plead no contest to the charge of being an
illegal alien parasite then.
>
> > > > > so I thought 'why not'.
> > > >
> > > > It is very important to you that we believe your excus es of
> > > > why you are here. But the truth is obvious.
> > >
> > > Teach me... 'Del'...
> >
> > Ok first lesson: Offer arguments (or be prepared to)
> > instead of mere assertions. Here is the difference:
>
> Arguments?
Very good. Yes arguments. Sound it out: ar gu ments.
> Go buy something. And use your brain.
This is the ad hominem fallacy. You seem addicted to
logical fallacy.
> Or, switch the TV on.
No thanks.
> And use your brain.
Ironic. I'm not the one here commiting logical fallacies.
> See... arguments?
No I don't see. I see you being evasive again, however.
> I'm not here to MAKE you believe in something.
Hahahahahahahahahaha! So how come you haven't
said "Don't believe a word I say!"? Why don't you do
it now? Tell everyone here not to pay any attention to
you. Go ahead. We're waiting.....
People
> use 'arguments' cause they usually wanna MAKE someone
> believe what they say.
If you don't expect people to believe your many claims
then you have absolutely no reason to expend the effort
to locate alt.atheism, read the posts and then respond to
them. You want your cake and to eat it too. You want
to express your opinions but you don't want to expend
the effort to show that your opinions have any truth
value. Probably because you realize on some level that
they don't.
I had a lot of opportunities to correspond
> wi th people who think they are smart, educated, refined, polite
> and 'above the rest' because of these 'qualities' they possessed,
> and most of them always talked about 'arguments'. This ain't
> no fucking trial, usenet is no fucking court room.
Straw man logical fallacy. Arguments are the ONLY
legitimate vehicles of persuasion when it comes to
important issues about the real world. All an argument
is is offering reasons to accept a claim. If you can't offer
reasons to accept your claims then your claims are
worthless or you are incompetent. So which is it?
If you're going
> to slander me because you think that I should use 'arguments'
> when talking to you, then you need yer brain checked.
Another straw man fallacy.
If you
> do not understand what I say, then say it... don't be a word
> twister and a hypocrite...
Begging the question, another logical fallacy. Obviously
you want to persuade people that I have twisted your
words or else you will now tell people NOT to believe
it. So go ahead and tell people not to believe it. If you
don't then obviously you do want them to and your
claims to the contrary are more bullshit from you.
Go ahead, quote me where I have twisted your words.
> trying to deminish what I say, just beacuse
> you are prolly more educated than me,
Instead of resenting everyone more educated than you,
why don't you just ewducate yourself? When I try to help
you out here we see the result: this long-winded tangent
you take us on right now.
> or you have more experience
> in conversations, correspondence. Whatever...
>
> I speak honestly, I don't twist the words,
Look. Making accusations that you can't provide evidence
for is not speaking honestly. A dedicated accuser can make
100 accusations in the time it takes his victim to refute one
of them. If you really want to play that game, how about I
start throwing out a few hundred accusations and insinuations
about you?
You see, I am bound, ethically bound, to assert only
those claims that I can offer supporting evidence and or
reasons for. It is too god damn easy to just say a ton of
shit that can't be supported. I choose not to take the easy
way. It makes self respect nearly impossible. And we see
the result of giving into doing it the easy way in your
example.
contdy
Del
ivan wrote:
> "Del" <jfa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:1124831713.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I speak fairly understandable,
> by both educated and non educated people.
Yes.
>An d that is, really, my
> problem.
So if you were incomprehensible you'd have no problem?
> Because then, educated and 'all for the arguments' people
> get attacked, offended... and most of people, in my case, get the picture
> that I'm the one who knows all. Well, I don't know all,
I thought you said you didn't care what people thought, that
you weren't trying to persuade anyone?
> but I know very
> much.
So you are the same as the people you like to attack then?
> Get it, git? Good.
>
> > 1. You need some sense...
> >
> >
> > 2. You need some sense because of [list reasons].
> >
> > The first example is assertion. The second example
> > (when reasons are included) is an argument.
> >
> > Clearly then argument is assert ion plus reasons
> > offered to accept that assertion.
> >
> > Can you explain to the class why it is important
> > to offer arguments instead of mere assertions?
>
> Because you say so. End of message.
Bzzzzz! Oh, I'm sorry. It seems you don't know quite
as much as you like to assert.
>
> > > > > And unfortunately for human kind, th ere are many of you out there.
> > > >
> > > > That's why you are compelled to hang out in a.a.
> > >
> > > No. As I said, I'm here just have some fun. That's all.
> > >
> > > > > But hey... who gives a shit?
> > > >
> > > > You do, obviously.
> > >
> > > So do you, OBVIOUSLY!
> >
> > You invade this thread in my ng. I did not come to you.
> > You came to me.
>
> YOUR ng?
Why do you keep repeating what I write? Are you hard of reading?
> Wow... like, you OWN this ng?
It is to your advantage not to reveal your own ignorance
if you can avoid it. You see, an intelligent child would
easily understand what I meant. This is my ng. I am an
atheist. You are not. Once again you evade my point by
changing the subject to me. Do you get a lot of milage
from this deceptive tactic?
You OWN
> usenet? Sorry, you didn't tell me that piece of information.
So you agree that you obviously give a shit about what
atheists think because it is you who have come to alt.atheism,
not alt.atheism or atheists that have come to you.
>
> > > > >You lost your souls, and now you're
> > > > > atheists. Fine by me.
> > > >
> > > > Jealousy is a sickness ivanhoe. We get your type here all
> > > > the time: cowardly wannabes who become hostile when
> > > > their bids for attention from their superiors are rejected.
> > > > They, like you, don't realize just how transparent they,
> > > > and you, are.
> > >
> > > So are you m8, SO ARE YOU...
> >
> > Try using ALL CAPS for the whole sentence next time.
> > That's more convincing.
>
> Cool... another example of your slande r...
Hahahahahaha! So "slander" is another word you don't
understand and this is another point of mine you feel you
must avoid. That point being that you merely assert things
and pretend they are true.
>
> > > > > But I really expected something better then
> > > > > your replies...
> > > >
> > > > See what I mean? Awww, did we hurt your feeli ngs? LOL!
> > >
> > > Nope.
> >
> > Of course you'd say so if we did. LOL!
>
> I would.
I don't think so.
> I'm not a hypocrite like yourself.
The evidence says quite the opposite. You are indeed
a hypocrite on a numbver of levels and for a number
of reasons. Go ahead: ask me to support this accusation.
I dare ya.
On the other hand, you have no intention or ability to
quote me to show any hypocrisy on my part. You'd
have to make something up to do that. IOW asking
you to support your accusations is an exercise in futility.
And hide my
> feelings. And then... you know... yeah... you... know what
> happens then. Atheist have a good perception what goes next
> after someone hurts your feelings, and they keep their feelings
> all bottled up inside...
No doubt you have similiar opinions about women
and Jews and African Americans. I'd give you another
lesson in logic --why such blanket preconceptions are
fallacious--but your hostility toward logic and ethical
discourse in general has convinced me it would be
margaritas ante porcos.
>
> > > > >I must admit, I don't get it all written down, and I am
> > > > > lacking experience in correspondence in english,
> > > >
> > > > Don't be so modest. I'm sure your ignorance transcends language
> > > > altogether.
> > >
> > > Yeah, I hear that a lot from the likes of you...
> >
> > A word to the wise should be sufficient.So naturally
> > it failed here:
>
> :
>
> > > but hey... I don't
> > > give a shit,
> >
> > If you didn't give a shit you wouldn't care if I
> > knew you didn't give a shit or not. Yet you
> > obviously do care.
>
> I care. For some things...
Too bad logic and ethics aren't two of them.
>
> > > cause you wanna know why? Both YOU and THEM
> > > lost your souls somewhere along the way... and THAT my dear
> > > Watson, is something ANYONE can see. Even if you just LOOK
> > > at someone, let alone making a conversation of any kind with them...
> >
> > LOL!
>
> Yeah... funny how that made you laugh.
>
> > > > > but hey... stoopid
> > > > > folks wondering what 'liek' means, or 'aks'...
> > > >
> > > > When you can't take r esponsibility for even your blatant
> > > > shortcomings it is a sign of rabid insecurity. Sorry that
> > > > being around atheists make you feel insecure.
> > >
> > > Responsibility?
> >
> > Trouble with English again?
>
> No.
>
> > > Dude, just grow a brain, will ya?
> >
> > More logical fallacy of the ad hominem variety. Have
> > you asked yourself why you need to rely on fallacies
> > to evade the issue I raise here? Notice that you DID
> > indeed evade my point.
>
> Don't use latin. You didn't study latin.
Actually this says more--much more--about you than it
does about me. It also is another example of you changing
the subject to avoid the issue of your commiting a logical
fallacy. Have you noticed that you do this as a kneejerk
reaction to virtually any exposure of your poor behavior?
> It's just a facade.
Prove it. You are just angry because in another group
an atheist reduced you to tears and you were laughed off
the board, remember? You said your mother was an
atheist and you hated her. It was a pathetic performance.
> In your case. Did you learn latin? I doubt it.
Ad hominem is the name of the fallacy. I crack up at
people who are intimidated by the names of fallacies
because they are in Latin. Maybe if you educated yourself
you wouldn't have this inferiority chip on your shoulder
and wouldn't be intimidated by such silly things as the
names of logical fallacies. But if you didn't, how else
would you avoid addressing the issue of your poor behavior?
> Ye amerikans are dumb...
People who make blanket statements like this are dumb.
> you don't know the difference between perfect
> and passive...
LOL. There wouldn't be space or time enough to list
what you don't know.
>
> > > > Try improving yourself.
> > >
> > > I am. Here I am. Thank you for your ti me...
> >
> > You don't sound sincere.
>
> Why? Cause you think so?
>
> > > I will be a much
> > > better person after this.
> >
> > Now, now, don't be so cynical. You could improve
> > yourself if you wanted to. The, trouble however is as Plato
> > pu ts it:
>
> Plato? Wow... you must be veuy veuy smart...
Intimidated by mention of Plato! You really have
an obsession with this, don't you? Either you are so
much smarter than me or else I intimidate you by
quoting Plato. Sounds like your atheist mother really
screwed up your head.
>
> >
> > "Neither do the ignorant seek after wisdom. For
> > herein is the evil of ignorance, that he who is
> > neither good nor wise is nevertheless satisfied with
> > himself: He has no desire for that of which he
> > feels no want."
>
> Wow... beautiful... great man... great society...
> great and magnificent culture... sure...
"There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action."
- Goethe
>
> > > And will have more evidence of just how
> > > you atheists are stoopid...
> >
> > A glittering generality and a good example of
> > bigotry. Want the definition? Here you go:
>
> If anyone is biggot, then that is YOU.
You say this as if you thought your opinion carried some
weight. But of course you do it simply to avoid the truth
about yourself. You simply can't handle it. So every time
you are confronted by it, you make a counter accusation
to take the heat off of you. Sorry that it isn't working with
me. Better luck next time.
> > Bigotry
> > prejudice
> >
> > These words refer to an unfair irrational or unexamined
> > attitude toward issue s or people based on blanket
> > preconceptions.
> >
> > Bigotry now refers almost exclusively to an intense
> > dislike or even violent hatred for a particular group,
> > race, or religion. The comparable use of prejudice
> > would indicate a similar bu t far less intense
> > predisposition against such a group. Bigotry almost
> > surely would be evidenced in unashamed public utterance
> > or behavior.
> > -- Hayakawa, S. I. (1978). Use The Right Word: Modern
> > guide to Synonyms and Related Words. New york:
> > Readers Digest Books.
> >
> > Notice "Bigotry almost surely would be evidenced in
> > unashamed public utterance or behavior."
> >
> > That's you, all right.
>
> Yeah, you too.
You keep trying to rationalize your behavior by pointing
to atheists. You're saying that if atheists do it then it is
acceptable behavior. Odd that a believer bases his morality
on atheists. Actually it is pretty common. You admit that
atheist ethics is what you aspire to. Since you keep
rationalizing your behavior this way you obviously believe
atheist ethics are superior to your own.
>
> > > and I must say again; you are as stoopid
> > > as some christian fundamentalist.
> >
> > And you have a brilliant mind. Now we're both liars. Happy?
>
> No. You don't lie. You are just an atheist. You have moral
> values encoded in yer DNA. Sky high moral values...
See what I mean?
>
> > > > >shit... you must be veuy,
> > > > > veuy smart.
> > > >
> > > > >From your perspective I'm sure most people are.
> > > >
> > > > > The bunch of ya. Geeks. NO! Atheist geeks. Damn Bill!
> > > >
> > > > Good argument. Your inability to feel humiliated by the
> > > > half-witted rubbish you spew is a real gift.
> > >
> > > Humiliated? By the likes of YOU?
> >
> > That problem with English again? I said humiliated by the
> > half-witted rubbish you spew (look again. you will see
> > I am right) Maybe you could get an adult to help you
> > read the posts for you.
>
> Yes... I see... if you are not humiliated by your rubbish,
And he does it again! You're a one trick pony, Ivanhoe.
Every valid criticism of your squalid behavior is met with:
"you do it too!" as if that justified it. How old are you
anyway? I don't want to be too harsh if you are like, 12
years old or something.
why
> should I be humiliated with my rubbish?
>
> > > Hahahahaha... man,
> > > people are just plain vanilla stoopid.
> >
> > Does that include people who can't comprehend a short sentence?
>
> Maybe. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
>
> > > AND scared. FEAR,
> > > my dear 'DEL', oozes thru your pores... and it is showing.
> > >
> > > A LOT!
> >
> > You're so right. I'm shaking in my boots. Whatever
> > shall I do?
>
> Pray. Pfffffffff...
>
> > > > You may go now.
> > >
> > > Why? Cause YOU said so?
> >
> > How else would you know what to do or
> > believe?
>
> Well... can I see some references? Where did you
> go to college? University? Thank you...
Y
Del
nobody wrote:
> On 23 Aug 2005 23:36:48 -0700, "Del" <jfa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >nobody wrote:
> >> On 23 Aug 2005 08:23:47 -0700, "Del" <jfa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> >nobody wrote:
> >> >> On 22 Aug 2005 16:46:59 -0700, "Del" <jfa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> >> >nobody wrote:
> >> >> >> "Greywolf" <grey...@cybrzn.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >"nobo dy" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote
>
> >> >> >> You need to take a deep breath, calm down, take your medication, drink
> >> >> >> some tea, whatever.
>
> >> >> >If you can't defend your position, ad hominem
> >> >> >is a rather obvious and poor substitute.
>
> >> >> I didn't state a position other than pointing out that Greywolf seems
> >> >> fancy I am defending?
>
> >First, I didn't say you were defending any position.
>
> Let's see, what does "If you can't defend your position" imply? In all
> non-Outer-Limit situations, it implies that at the very least I would
Maybe you should try focusing on the plain meaning of words
instead of what you think they "imply."
> True, though. I am not defending any position. I am stating a
> position. I am not arguing with Greywolf, I'm telling him what I think
> his problem is.
Ah. Taking a "I am the center of the world and I know best"
position, then.
> To heed my advice or not is his choice. Now, what's
> *your* problem?
>
> >Just the opposite, actually. When faced with a
> > response you didn't like, you came back with
> >more personal attack: "You need to take a deep
> >breath, calm down, take your medication, drink
> >some tea, whatever." Note: even if what you say
> > was true (and you offer no evidence that it was)
> > it doesn't mean that GW was wrong, or even that
> > you were right. That's because ad hominem is a
> > fallacy of irrelevance. It avoids the issue to
> >instead attack the messenger.
>
> Oh goodie, another fool who thinks having read and memorized the long
> online list of fallacies makes him a lesser fool!
LOL! You confirm my conclusion about you projecting
your own juvenile attitude on GW. Thanks, I hate being
wrong.
PS: your previous, above, is likewise ad hominem. Should
you ever wish to rise above the sophistical gutter I suggest
you stay away from on line "scholarship," especially if you
are an example of the result. Regards ad hominem, Try: Walton,
Douglas N. _Ad Hominem Arguments_. first ed., London: The
University of Alabama Press, 1998. It is a little pricey at 35
bones--so you will have to flip a lot of burgers to buy it--but
who can put a price on curing the heartbreak of stone ignorance?
> Now, is *that* an ad hominem? You bet! Is it true? Of course.
See what I mean about relying on on-line "scholarship"?
>
> >> > "There's your problem, if, by virtue of being an athe ist, you believe
> >> > you are an intellectual and thus superior to the masses."
>
> >> I said *other*. That's *the* position I said I already have,
>
> >Oh. Is that position sacred or something?
> No. It's just that you seem to be incapable of comprehension beyond
> the most elementary pattern matching.
LOL! I rest my case. You probably found your way here by mistake.
Obviously you're a bit over your head here. Try again when you get
that attitude problem solved.
Del
That's why no one asks you.
Del
Greywolf wrote:
> "Del" <jfa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:1124864000.8...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Greywolf wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> I started out this post talking about how bad I felt about attacking
> >> 'go od'
> >> Christians. The responses have now convinced me that there is no such
> >> thing as a 'good' Christian.
> >
> > Come on. Don't let this useless troll polarize you. You
> > aren't reacting to Christians here. There is nothing
> > "Christian" about him, or about 99% of the invaders to
> > a.a. who call themselves Christian. It is a capital mistake
> > to judge Christians based on the dregs who navigate
> > themselves to a.a. Your original post was well considered
> > That should tell you something right there. There should
> > be a lot more atheists here with your attitude and that's the
> > truth I'd like to believe that there is more--a lot more--to
> > closed minded bigot like ivan the hoe.
> >
> > The easiest thing in the world is to become polarized due to
> > confronting these assholes and turning into what you dislike-
> > -to fight fire with fire. In fact all you have to do is not resist
> > it and it will happen. But you owe it to yourself to resist.
> > Judging an entire group negatively based on the behavior of
> > a few practically defines the term bigotry. Is that really who
> > you are? I don't think so.
> >
> > Ciao
Something I just noticed about your posts: You aren't posturing--
something that the vast majority of posters on both sides here do
(I define "posturing" as the projection of a phony attitude, usually
one of "I am just ever so right," usually in lieu of substantial
argument) You respond with candor, which I find refreshing. When
you are candid you are open and of course when you are open,
you are vulnerable to attack. The posturing phonies don't make
candor easy, in other words.
> >
> You know, I started to submit a reply to a post regarding the
> general disrespect atheists get. But it got me to thinking about
> the JW plumber who, upon being made aware of my plight (my
> home [mysteriously] burned down last October), came here with
> his own well-pump and hooked into my old well 'line' - without
> charging me a dime, or giving me any real 'Jesus' sermon. (This,
> occurred just this last month.)
There you go. In my opinion, this person probably would have
done this even if he wasn't a Christian. What I mean is that people
can be good or bad without regard to their religion (or lack of it).
>
> Now, that to me, demonstrated the behavior of what I have come to
> perceive as a 'good' Christian.
It is what Christians are called upon to do, certainly.
I even typed out, 'God bless you,
> Mr. _________!" Not because I believe in God, ( I most certainly
> do not.) But it was a way of expressing my genuine appreciation
> for what he did, in a way that he would truly apprecia te. (If that's
> considered being a 'phony,' tough. It's just a nice gesture, in my
> book.)
To me, atheists should be open minded: free thinkers, iow.
What you describe here sounds open minded to me. You
will notice how the extremists on both sides find open
mindedness distasteful. They want you to tow (or is that
"toe"?) the line and don't question the dogma.
Anyway, I also believe what Michael Gray has said to be
> true. Even a good, well-intentioned Christian has a core belief that
> is thoroughly unsound.
Yes, but they don't own the copyright on unsound beliefs.
There are atheists here who could give most Christians a
run for their money in that department, Ben Goren being
but one shining example. It is a human foible, not a
Christian or religious one.
And, of course, he or she is entitled to that
> belief. But as we now see, people who are a little more 'enthusiastic,'
> shall we say, about their faith, are just doing their best to force their
> belief-system down our throats - and they don't care how they go
> about doing it either.
I wouldn't disagree with that assessment of so called "Christians"
who invade alt.atheism. I migt shorten it to just calling them
"assholes" however.
They are unscrupulous, dishonest, unethical, and
> immoral at times. They don't play fair, but they expect to be fairly
> treated.
Indeed. I would say they practice double standards except they don't
seem to have any standards at all. But knowing a bit about human
nature I find it perplexing how they can compartmentalize their
behavior so successfully. I mean, I know they don't think of themselves
that way. Their self image is nothing like they way they actually
behave here. So how do they reconcile their behavior with their
self image? I have no idea.
I can't stand them. And so I will continue to treat people like
> the JW humanitarian with a great de al of respect. But at the same time,
> I will attack their belief-system. Their is no real room for compromise.
If you get down to it, isn't the problem their certainty
that they are right? They don't say "In my opinion, God
exists and wants X, but I could be wrong." The thing is,
when you "know" you are right, then tolerance doesn't
make sense. One doesn't "tolerate" a child running into a
busy street. That would be stupid and that is about how
they see it, because (the fundies anyway) have no doubts.
It is that certainty that is dangerous and I believe it is
dangerous for atheists to have no doubts too. For one thing
certainy about anything in the natural world isn't justified.
I take my cues from science about this--who don't pretend
to certainty about scientific theories. Scientists will say
"there is no evidence supporting ESP," they don't say
"There is no such thing as ESP." That is because the
former is absolutely justified and the latter is not.
> The whole attitude surrounding Christianity is, 'If you ain't with us, your
> agin' us."
Well, that attitude can be justified, since Jesus allegedly
said this. But in practice that certainly isn't a universal
attitude of Christians. I have 3 good friends who are (real)
Christians. In all the years I've known them (20 +) they
have never preached to me. Not once. (But one of them
has begun to ask me questions about the Bible because
he knows I know something about it. He knows I'm not
a Christian but I don't think he knows I'm an atheist.
The subject has never come up.) These 3 friends are as
different from the scum that show up here as it is possible
to be. They ALL seem to grasp what it is supposed to
be about. They don't embrace the bullshit things like
anti-gay, anti-sex, anti evolution at all. "I'm not here to
judge anybody" would be their collective attitude toward
these kinds of things. I really admire these people (who
barely know each other) and appreciate them all the mor
e from being in a.a. and seeing what they scum are like.
I wouldn't dream of trying to debunk them. I think
there is a vast difference between challenging the
existence of god to someone who wants to pass laws
based on his religious belief, and or is trying to
shove his belief down my throat (that kind of thing)
and challenging the existence of god to someone who
lives and lets live. In the former case, the believer has
made his god belief an issue that threatens me and mine.
He needs to show his god exists since he justifies his
desire to pass laws based on it. In the latter case I
would have to justify my attacking their belief without
cause. Can I say absolutely that no god exists? No. So
in the former example, my challenge would be justified
and in the latter example my debunking would not be (since
I can't be absolutely certain). In the former example the
fundy would have the burden of proof. In the latter, I
would carry the burden of proof.
And I don't like it. It is a psychological disease o f some sort -
> at least to *my* mind it is.
Most Christians have been introduced to it from their earliest
years. They have known nothing else. Most have never
knowingly ever met an atheist. And all they have ever herard
about atheists has been negative (because the clergy is
acutely threatened by atheists: if it ever catches on they are
in big trouble. Notice that this isn't true for the rank and file.
The clergy stand to lose big time if atheism catches on,
Church goers, however, don't.
>
> Lastly. I must add that it has become apparent that *somebody* has
> tried to get the JW to take back his well-pump.
What do you mean?
How's *that* for being
> a compassionate neighbor?
Why would they care if he lends you his pump?
And I still do not have water running into
> the trailer home I was forced to hastily purchase. And why is that?
> Because a water line underneath the trailer is cracked. And who sold
> me the trailer home in this condition? Why a Christian, of course! Who
> else?
An atheist, or a Jew or even an agnostic?
Anyway sorry to hear about your fire. That really sucks.
Take care
D
e
stoney
wrote:
>ivan wrote:
>> > > Explain 'gaywolf',
>> >
>> > Debate over. You lost. Ad hominem in less than two words. Nice job.
>>
>> Debate over? Jesus, you guys sure sound liek fags, NO OFFENCE!
>> Man, fags wouldn't be this touchy goddamnit!
>
>Guys, guys! Don't be mean to poor little ivan. Your hearts will be
>touched when you realize that he has yet to make it out of the fourth
>grade (for the third time) and it frustrates him. He *really* wants to
>learn how to spell the word "like" but they don't teach it 'til the
>fifth grade. What's a fuckwit to do with that sort of handicap but
>bother grownups on Usenet?
>
>Go easy on him. He's unarmed.
You might take a look at where he's posting from.
It looks like he's posting from Hungary.