>On Nov 15, 2:16 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 19:32:55 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On Nov 13, 12:05 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:42:23 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >On Nov 12, 3:32 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> >> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 12:33:00 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >On Nov 11, 1:56 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> I chuckled when the NY/NJ power companies block the
>> >> >> >> relief efforts from non-union states rather than work together to help the
>> >> >> >> victims.
>> >> >> >You "chuckled"? Yours is a disgustingly evil attitude.
>> >> >> Oh, no, no. You see, these are the people that massa bama catered to and who put
>> >> >> him back in. You totally missed the point of my comment.
>> >> >I get your point; you think it's funny they were suffering because you
>> >> >think they voted for Obama. Sick.
>> >> You're a sick woman, linda. A real straw_woeman maker, making up all sorts of
>> >> crap to fit your Satanist agenda.
>I have no "Satanist agenda", you LIE.
>> >Duke said:
>> >"I chuckled when the NY/NJ power companies block the relief efforts
>> >from non-union states rather than work together to help the victims."
>> >Duke explains: "You see, these are the people that massa bama catered
>> >to and who put him back in."
>> >> >(And I'm sure many Romney
>> >> >supporters in that area were without electricity and homes and food
>> >> >too, you old hypocrite.) You find it funny when people suffer, and
>> >> >your "massa bama" is bigoted too.
>> >> You're an evil woman.
>Your bigotry is evil.
Fortunately I'm not a bigot.
>> >It is what you find funny that reveals how evil your heart is. Duke
>> >says: "I chuckled when the NY/NJ power companies block the relief
>> >efforts from non-union states rather than work together to help the
>> >victims." Why you would even say something so stupid here is anyone's
>> >guess... don't try to blame me for your own stupidity.
>> It's all inherent in your own words: "massa bama won, massa bama won".
>Those are not my words. I said only "Obama Won!", and those words
>("massa bama won, massa bama won"), are your bigoted words (as you
>used a play on words of black slaves in the past calling their
>'owners' master i.e. massa, much like you call Obama "Buckwheat"
>alluding to the black kid on 'The Little Rascals'),
But, but, but massa bama is a negro in this case.
>so once again YOU
>LIE. It is sad that you are so hateful and afraid of a black man
>being President. But it's pretty funny you lie repeatedly in a thread
>where you deny lying. LOL!
I'm not afraid in any way of a black man being president. What I'm afraid of is
our current crook of a black man being president.
>> Many
>> of us can do something you can't - think on multi-plane levels rather than
>> "duh".
>Lol! Duke, you're not the brightest bulb in the pack, often
>misunderstanding what is said in people's posts
If I misunderstand, you did a terrible job of expressing yourself. You ever
think of that?
>, but I never said
>anything about your lack of comprehension, instead explaining to you
>when you had misunderstood someone, but when you reacted angrily by
>repeatedly lying, you revealed yourself as a child of the Devil, the
>father of lies.
Then there you go. I have never lied on the ng, and so I never reacted angrily.
The dukester, American - American
********************************************
You can't fix stupid.
********************************************
>On Nov 17, 8:47 am, Rod <nhraf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/17/2012 6:44 AM, Linda Lee wrote:
>> > On Nov 15, 2:16 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 19:32:55 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> On Nov 13, 12:05 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >>>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:42:23 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>> On Nov 12, 3:32 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >>>>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 12:33:00 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com>
>> >>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>> On Nov 11, 1:56 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> I chuckled when the NY/NJ power companies block the
>> >>>>>>>> relief efforts from non-union states rather than work together to help the
>> >>>>>>>> victims.
>> >>>>>>> You "chuckled"? Yours is a disgustingly evil attitude.
>> >>>>>> Oh, no, no. You see, these are the people that massa bama catered to and who put
>> >>>>>> him back in. You totally missed the point of my comment.
>> >>>>> I get your point; you think it's funny they were suffering because you
>> >>>>> think they voted for Obama. Sick.
>> >>>> You're a sick woman, linda. A real straw_woeman maker, making up all sorts of
>> >>>> crap to fit your Satanist agenda.
>> > I have no "Satanist agenda", you LIE.
>> Actually, he is speaking the truth about you, and it's there for the
>> entire planet to see. I even gave you far more credit than I should
>> have, since you haven't changed one little bit when it comes to
>> controlling that vile tongue of yours. There really isn't a lot I can
>> say to you. Your posts are there for the world to see; being in denial
>> isn't going to save you.
> WHATEVER... you creep.
I think that the implication is that YOU are the creep.
The dukester, American - American
********************************************
You can't fix stupid.
********************************************
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 17:41:22 -0800 (PST), Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Nov 16, 10:25 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 17:35:18 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >On Nov 15, 4:57 pm, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Nov 15, 11:14 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> > On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 19:46:22 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> > >On Nov 13, 12:10 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> > >> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 03:27:49 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com>
> >> >> > >> wrote:
> >> >> > >> >> My post addresses both you and Duke directly.
> >> >> > >> >> TCross
> >> >> > >> >You said unions are bad, and no unions are worse, but I had no comment
> >> >> > >> >about unions. My comment concerned Duke's cold-hearted attitude
> >> >> > >> >towards the victims of Hurricane Sandy
> >> >> > >> But you're too God-almighty stupid to read what I said, preferring instead to
> >> >> > >> "make up" what I meant, just like you do with God's word.
> >> >> > >> >Duke's cold statement was:
> >> >> > >> >"I chuckled when the NY/NJ power companies block the relief efforts
> >> >> > >> >from non-union states rather than work together to help the
> >> >> > >> >victims."
> >> >> > >> >His further explanation of him finding this humorous was:
> >> >> > >> >"You see, these are the people that massa bama catered to and who put
> >> >> > >> >him back in."
> >> >> > >> Hey, stupid woman, didn't you know that the union power workers in NY/NJ blocked
> >> >> > >> efforts from non union power company states to help out. And so the recovery is
> >> >> > >> yet further delayed by union labor penny ante attitudes.
> >> >> > >I quoted you word-for-word
> >> >> > Then you will have noticed I said "blocked non-union workers from helping out".
> >> >> > ...
> >> >> > Remember, linda. Stupid is as stupid does
> >> >> Duke, this must not get personal. Your information is simply not
> >> >> correct.
> >> >> Union sent letter to Florida crews asking them to temporarily join
> >> >> when Hurricane Sandy first hit.
> >> >> By Henry Powderly
> >> >> Long Island Power Authority union leaders on Friday said non-union
> >> >> workers have been more than welcome to help put Long Island residents
> >> >> back on the grid.
> >> >> The union's comments came after nearly two weeks of rumors that it was
> >> >> keeping workers who aren't members from working on the major
> >> >> restoration project.
> >> >> Then on Friday, a Newsday report sourced Florida Municipal Electric
> >> >> Association Executive Director Barry Moline, who said that he sent
> >> >> crews to other states after the Local 1049 of the International
> >> >> Brotherhood of Electrical Workers sent his workers a contract that
> >> >> would make them temporary members of the union.
> >> >> That "letter of assent" was dated Oct. 29, the day Hurricane Sandy
> >> >> first started battering Long Island, according to Newsday.
> >> >> But Don Daley, business manager for local 1049, told Patch it stopped
> >> >> being an issue soon after the extent of the damages on Long Island
> >> >> became clear.
> >> >> "There hasn't been a union-non-union issue here since the severity of
> >> >> the storm became obvious. Our only goal right now is to restore power
> >> >> as quickly, efficiently and safely as possible and we welcome all the
> >> >> assistance we can get."
> >> >> Wendy Ladd, a spokeswoman for National Grid, has also said that
> >> >> workers were not turned away if they refused to join the union.
> >> >> You have to be more careful about believing something simply because
> >> >> it agrees with your politics.
> >> >> TCross
> >> >Duke doesn't care to refrain from lying if he gets angry.
> >> And who makes you an authority on anything? Union labor means blackmail, pure
> >> and simple.
> >Duke, you don't have the background to understand this issue. I have
> >worked both sides, and seen that though unions are not pretty, they
> >protect against something quite ugly. Money does not make right, nor
> >comparative wealth make justice. Yet without unions, such would be
> >the law.
> And I've seen the blackmail of unions aimed at businesses. I don't have to be
> a member-of to see the garbage of the unions. Yes, in the days of slave labor
> in factories and the like, the unions had a value. Then they took over power
> and blackmailed the businesses.
> My favorite but true story is about 2 men who owned a rather successful
> fabrication shop of reasonable size. The workers talked of joining a union. The
> owners said "you do and we move the shop across the state". End of story.
> Beautiful.
I believe you are using an odd pair of presumptions in this story.
You seem to presume that any union is a nasty affair and that workers
will always abuse the employer, if given the opportunity. I think you
should take note of that presumption because a union is only a sum of
the workers.
The presumption is absurd because we may make a similar presumption of
the owners -- and with equal truth. I could ask you to presume that
company owners will always abuse the workers, given the opportunity,
and you would find the presumption absurd.
Yet they are just people on both sides of the problem. Yes, some
companies abuse the workers. Yes, some unions abuse the companies.
You may say that workers without a union have no power to act out
their abusive nature, but they also have no power to resist abusive
companies. Some might say that is a good thing when the abuse is
totally one-sided, but I beg to differ.
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 22:13:39 -0800 (PST), Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Nov 16, 9:22 pm, Rod <nhraf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 11/16/2012 12:24 PM, duke wrote:
> >> Well, as of 10 am this morning Dolly Madison Cakes and Hostess are
> >> closing shop and selling what assets they have. They gave the union a
> >> deadline of 4 pm today to accept the new contract, which only had a 2%
> >> pay cut and the same benefits and the union told them to shove it. Now
> >> 18,000 union people are jobless. Considering these economic times I
> >> would say that the union turned down a good deal. This is what greed
> >> gets ya...
> >Greed, is it? Why didn't the union get "smart" (by your reckoning)
> >and insist on a 4% cut, or a 40% cut?
> They didn't. They were insisting that cookies and bread could not be delivered
> in the same truck.
> >You don't know what the workers were getting, so you cannot uess that
> >they were getting "a good deal." But meanwhile, the corporations
> >raise the cost of products 10% per year. The prices go up every year
> >and the wages stay the same or go down. Who benefits by the increased
> >spread?
> Why would the wages stay the same or go down? And what right do the workers
> have to care what the owners charge. The workers agreed to their wages. So
> tell them to shut the hell up.
When the workers agree to the wages, they are stuck with the bargain.
But when they don't agree to the wages, they face the wrath of Duke.
> >Hostess produced a terrible product anyway, not much above
> >methedrine. Both are products that addict and kill the consumers. It
> >is good news for humanity that they are gone.
> I didn't eat twinkies anyway. And ding dongs were good but I havn't had one for
> years. But if I did, I do it based on the sale price, not on the labor wages.
I don't use meth regardless of the price. And even if the labs were
unionized, I still would not use it.
> On Nov 19, 1:37 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 17:41:22 -0800 (PST), Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >On Nov 16, 10:25 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> > >> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 17:35:18 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >On Nov 15, 4:57 pm, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> On Nov 15, 11:14 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> > >> >> > On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 19:46:22 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com>
> > >> >> > wrote:
> > >> >> > >On Nov 13, 12:10 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> > >> >> > >> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 03:27:49 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com>
> > >> >> > >> wrote:
> > >> >> > >> >> My post addresses both you and Duke directly.
> > >> >> > >> >> TCross
> > >> >> > >> >You said unions are bad, and no unions are worse, but I had no comment
> > >> >> > >> >about unions. My comment concerned Duke's cold-hearted attitude
> > >> >> > >> >towards the victims of Hurricane Sandy
> > >> >> > >> But you're too God-almighty stupid to read what I said, preferring instead to
> > >> >> > >> "make up" what I meant, just like you do with God's word.
> > >> >> > >> >Duke's cold statement was:
> > >> >> > >> >"I chuckled when the NY/NJ power companies block the relief efforts
> > >> >> > >> >from non-union states rather than work together to help the
> > >> >> > >> >victims."
> > >> >> > >> >His further explanation of him finding this humorous was:
> > >> >> > >> >"You see, these are the people that massa bama catered to and who put
> > >> >> > >> >him back in."
> > >> >> > >> Hey, stupid woman, didn't you know that the union power workers in NY/NJ blocked
> > >> >> > >> efforts from non union power company states to help out. And so the recovery is
> > >> >> > >> yet further delayed by union labor penny ante attitudes.
> > >> >> > >I quoted you word-for-word
> > >> >> > Then you will have noticed I said "blocked non-union workers from helping out".
> > >> >> > ...
> > >> >> > Remember, linda. Stupid is as stupid does
> > >> >> Duke, this must not get personal. Your information is simply not
> > >> >> correct.
> > >> >> Union sent letter to Florida crews asking them to temporarily join
> > >> >> when Hurricane Sandy first hit.
> > >> >> By Henry Powderly
> > >> >> Long Island Power Authority union leaders on Friday said non-union
> > >> >> workers have been more than welcome to help put Long Island residents
> > >> >> back on the grid.
> > >> >> The union's comments came after nearly two weeks of rumors that it was
> > >> >> keeping workers who aren't members from working on the major
> > >> >> restoration project.
> > >> >> Then on Friday, a Newsday report sourced Florida Municipal Electric
> > >> >> Association Executive Director Barry Moline, who said that he sent
> > >> >> crews to other states after the Local 1049 of the International
> > >> >> Brotherhood of Electrical Workers sent his workers a contract that
> > >> >> would make them temporary members of the union.
> > >> >> That "letter of assent" was dated Oct. 29, the day Hurricane Sandy
> > >> >> first started battering Long Island, according to Newsday.
> > >> >> But Don Daley, business manager for local 1049, told Patch it stopped
> > >> >> being an issue soon after the extent of the damages on Long Island
> > >> >> became clear.
> > >> >> "There hasn't been a union-non-union issue here since the severity of
> > >> >> the storm became obvious. Our only goal right now is to restore power
> > >> >> as quickly, efficiently and safely as possible and we welcome all the
> > >> >> assistance we can get."
> > >> >> Wendy Ladd, a spokeswoman for National Grid, has also said that
> > >> >> workers were not turned away if they refused to join the union.
> > >> >> You have to be more careful about believing something simply because
> > >> >> it agrees with your politics.
> > >> >> TCross
> > >> >Duke doesn't care to refrain from lying if he gets angry.
> > >> And who makes you an authority on anything? Union labor means blackmail, pure
> > >> and simple.
> > >Duke, you don't have the background to understand this issue. I have
> > >worked both sides, and seen that though unions are not pretty, they
> > >protect against something quite ugly. Money does not make right, nor
> > >comparative wealth make justice. Yet without unions, such would be
> > >the law.
> > And I've seen the blackmail of unions aimed at businesses. I don't have to be
> > a member-of to see the garbage of the unions. Yes, in the days of slave labor
> > in factories and the like, the unions had a value. Then they took over power
> > and blackmailed the businesses.
> > My favorite but true story is about 2 men who owned a rather successful
> > fabrication shop of reasonable size. The workers talked of joining a union. The
> > owners said "you do and we move the shop across the state". End of story.
> > Beautiful.
> I believe you are using an odd pair of presumptions in this story.
> You seem to presume that any union is a nasty affair and that workers
> will always abuse the employer, if given the opportunity. I think you
> should take note of that presumption because a union is only a sum of
> the workers.
> The presumption is absurd because we may make a similar presumption of
> the owners -- and with equal truth. I could ask you to presume that
> company owners will always abuse the workers, given the opportunity,
> and you would find the presumption absurd.
> Yet they are just people on both sides of the problem. Yes, some
> companies abuse the workers. Yes, some unions abuse the companies.
> You may say that workers without a union have no power to act out
> their abusive nature, but they also have no power to resist abusive
> companies. Some might say that is a good thing when the abuse is
> totally one-sided, but I beg to differ.
> TCross
There's no sense in talking to duke; as he says, You can't fix stupid.
>> >> And who makes you an authority on anything? Union labor means blackmail, pure
>> >> and simple.
>> >Duke, you don't have the background to understand this issue. I have
>> >worked both sides, and seen that though unions are not pretty, they
>> >protect against something quite ugly. Money does not make right, nor
>> >comparative wealth make justice. Yet without unions, such would be
>> >the law.
>> And I've seen the blackmail of unions aimed at businesses. I don't have to be
>> a member-of to see the garbage of the unions. Yes, in the days of slave labor
>> in factories and the like, the unions had a value. Then they took over power
>> and blackmailed the businesses.
>> My favorite but true story is about 2 men who owned a rather successful
>> fabrication shop of reasonable size. The workers talked of joining a union. The
>> owners said "you do and we move the shop across the state". End of story.
>> Beautiful.
>I believe you are using an odd pair of presumptions in this story.
I knew the two owners and I worked there as a youth-hire.
>You seem to presume that any union is a nasty affair and that workers
>will always abuse the employer, if given the opportunity. I think you
>should take note of that presumption because a union is only a sum of
>the workers.
No, I never said "always". But it's evident that some day it will happen. It's
historical.
>The presumption is absurd because we may make a similar presumption of
>the owners -- and with equal truth. I could ask you to presume that
>company owners will always abuse the workers, given the opportunity,
>and you would find the presumption absurd.
Actually that's a historical statement. With unlimited authority and power
either way, that's exactly what happens. There can be peace in the middle. But
when the union requires the cookies and the bread to be delivered in different
trucks, trouble is brewing.
>Yet they are just people on both sides of the problem. Yes, some
>companies abuse the workers. Yes, some unions abuse the companies.
We're in the "unions abusing the companies" at this time.
>You may say that workers without a union have no power to act out
>their abusive nature, but they also have no power to resist abusive
>companies. Some might say that is a good thing when the abuse is
>totally one-sided, but I beg to differ.
>TCross
So do I.
The dukester, American - American
********************************************
You can't fix stupid.
********************************************
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 17:09:01 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com>
wrote:
>On Nov 19, 5:16 pm, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 19, 1:37 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>There's no sense in talking to duke; as he says, You can't fix stupid.
You're too stupid to stay with me. You're not the brightest light on the block,
linda.
The dukester, American - American
********************************************
You can't fix stupid.
********************************************
>On Nov 19, 1:42 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 22:13:39 -0800 (PST), Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On Nov 16, 9:22 pm, Rod <nhraf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On 11/16/2012 12:24 PM, duke wrote:
>> >> Well, as of 10 am this morning Dolly Madison Cakes and Hostess are
>> >> closing shop and selling what assets they have. They gave the union a
>> >> deadline of 4 pm today to accept the new contract, which only had a 2%
>> >> pay cut and the same benefits and the union told them to shove it. Now
>> >> 18,000 union people are jobless. Considering these economic times I
>> >> would say that the union turned down a good deal. This is what greed
>> >> gets ya...
>> >Greed, is it? Why didn't the union get "smart" (by your reckoning)
>> >and insist on a 4% cut, or a 40% cut?
>> They didn't. They were insisting that cookies and bread could not be delivered
>> in the same truck.
>> >You don't know what the workers were getting, so you cannot uess that
>> >they were getting "a good deal." But meanwhile, the corporations
>> >raise the cost of products 10% per year. The prices go up every year
>> >and the wages stay the same or go down. Who benefits by the increased
>> >spread?
>> Why would the wages stay the same or go down? And what right do the workers
>> have to care what the owners charge. The workers agreed to their wages. So
>> tell them to shut the hell up.
>When the workers agree to the wages, they are stuck with the bargain.
>But when they don't agree to the wages, they face the wrath of Duke.
No, not me. When the union says the bread and the cookies must be delivered in
separate trucks, trouble is brewing.
>> >Hostess produced a terrible product anyway, not much above
>> >methedrine. Both are products that addict and kill the consumers. It
>> >is good news for humanity that they are gone.
>> I didn't eat twinkies anyway. And ding dongs were good but I havn't had one for
>> years. But if I did, I do it based on the sale price, not on the labor wages.
>I don't use meth regardless of the price. And even if the labs were
>unionized, I still would not use it.
>TCross
Great.
The dukester, American - American
********************************************
You can't fix stupid.
********************************************
> Here is a little advice from John, John_7:24 Judge not
> according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
> The woman didn't need the cigarettes and beer
Sure she did, it's called an addiction. Not unlike yourself.
As David Duchovny said in The Rapture: "It's a drug, but
instead of heroin, you do God".
> she did need food and had she used her money wisely
> she would have HAD food.
All she had to do was pray for the food.
Case in point:
There was a lady who lived next door to an atheist.
Everyday the lady prayed and the atheist could hear
her. He thought, "She sure is crazy, praying like that.
Doesn't she know there isn't a God?" Many times
while she was praying he would go to her house to
harass her saying "Lady, why do you pray all the time?
Don't you know there isn't a God?" But she kept on
praying. One day, she ran out of groceries. She was
praying to the Lord thanking Him for what He was
gonna do. The atheist heard her praying and thought
to himself: "I'll fix her."
He went to the grocery store and bought a whole bunch
of groceries. He took them to her house placed them on
the front porch and rang the door bell then hid in the bushes
to see what she would do. When she opened the door and
saw the groceries, she began to praise the Lord with all her
heart, jumping, singing and shoutin' everywhere!
The atheist jumped out of the bushes and told her, "You
crazy old lady, God didn't buy you those groceries, I bought
those groceries!"
Well, she started running down the street shouting and praising
the Lord. When he finally caught her, he asked what her
problem was. She said, "I knew the Lord would provide me
with some groceries, but I didn't know he was gonna make the
devil pay for them!"
As for judging that woman, what does Paul say with regard
to judgement of others within and without of the church?
1 Cor 5:12-13
>> Here is a little advice from John, John_7:24 Judge not
>> according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
>> The woman didn't need the cigarettes and beer
> Sure she did, it's called an addiction. Not unlike yourself.
Very unlike myself.
> As David Duchovny said in The Rapture: "It's a drug, but
> instead of heroin, you do God".
I take it that you do understand what love is, right? Do you
have a wife or a girl friend that you're devoted to ? Do you
know what it is like to have someone that you love so much that
you would sacrifice yourself for their well being ?
If you've never experienced this then perhaps we shouldn't talk
further about it until you do..
>> she did need food and had she used her money wisely
>> she would have HAD food.
> All she had to do was pray for the food.
> Case in point:
> There was a lady who lived next door to an atheist.
> Everyday the lady prayed and the atheist could hear
> her. He thought, "She sure is crazy, praying like that.
> Doesn't she know there isn't a God?" Many times
> while she was praying he would go to her house to
> harass her saying "Lady, why do you pray all the time?
> Don't you know there isn't a God?" But she kept on
> praying. One day, she ran out of groceries. She was
> praying to the Lord thanking Him for what He was
> gonna do. The atheist heard her praying and thought
> to himself: "I'll fix her."
> He went to the grocery store and bought a whole bunch
> of groceries. He took them to her house placed them on
> the front porch and rang the door bell then hid in the bushes
> to see what she would do. When she opened the door and
> saw the groceries, she began to praise the Lord with all her
> heart, jumping, singing and shoutin' everywhere!
> The atheist jumped out of the bushes and told her, "You
> crazy old lady, God didn't buy you those groceries, I bought
> those groceries!"
> Well, she started running down the street shouting and praising
> the Lord. When he finally caught her, he asked what her
> problem was. She said, "I knew the Lord would provide me
> with some groceries, but I didn't know he was gonna make the
> devil pay for them!"
Very, very good! I loved it.
> As for judging that woman, what does Paul say with regard
> to judgement of others within and without of the church?
> 1 Cor 5:12-13
Paul never knew Christ personally nor served under Him,
John did.
John_7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
However...since you have at least shown some restraint in
your use of language when speaking with me, I want to say
thank you.
> > I chuckled when the NY/NJ power companies block
> > the relief efforts from non-union states rather than work
> > together to help the victims.
> You "chuckled"? Yours is a disgustingly evil attitude. Love
> thy neighbor; don't laugh at their troubles, whatever the
> cause, no matter whether you consider them friend or enemy.
Eze 33:12b 'If someone who is righteous disobeys, that
person's former righteousness will count for nothing. And
if someone who is wicked repents, that person's former
wickedness will not bring condemnation. The righteous
person who sins will not be allowed to live even though
they were formerly righteous.' 13 If I tell a righteous
person that they will surely live, but then they trust in
their righteousness and do evil, none of the righteous
things that person has done will be remembered; they
will die for the evil they have done. 14 And if I say to
a wicked person, 'You will surely die,' but they then turn
away from their sin and do what is just and right
15 if they give back what they took in pledge for a loan,
return what they have stolen, follow the decrees that give
life, and do no evil-that person will surely live; they will
not die. 16 None of the sins that person has committed
will be remembered against them. They have done what
is just and right; they will surely live.
20b But I will judge each of you according to your own
ways.
On Nov 25, 8:29 pm, "Up from the Abyss" <U...@Abyss.net> wrote:
> "Rod" wrote:
> > Here is a little advice from John, John_7:24 Judge not
> > according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
That is not advice from John; those are Christ's words, and he is
referring to being condemned by others for healing on the sabbath day.
Joh 7:23 If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the
law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have
made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day?
Joh 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous
judgment.
Those words have nothing to do with judging a person for buying beer
and cigarettes. Who knows? They could have been provided for her by
someone else as a gift for her birthday, or it could have been
something she was sent to pick up for someone else. To assume she was
doing something wrong to be buying them is judging "according to the
appearance"; it is NOT "righteous judgment". Judging according to the
appearance results in self-righteous behavior. God alone can judge
because only He knows all the circumstances of a particular situation
and all of a person's motivations.
> Sure she did, it's called an addiction. Not unlike yourself.
> As David Duchovny said in The Rapture: "It's a drug, but
> instead of heroin, you do God".
> > she did need food and had she used her money wisely
> > she would have HAD food.
> All she had to do was pray for the food.
> Case in point:
> There was a lady who lived next door to an atheist.
> Everyday the lady prayed and the atheist could hear
> her. He thought, "She sure is crazy, praying like that.
> Doesn't she know there isn't a God?" Many times
> while she was praying he would go to her house to
> harass her saying "Lady, why do you pray all the time?
> Don't you know there isn't a God?" But she kept on
> praying. One day, she ran out of groceries. She was
> praying to the Lord thanking Him for what He was
> gonna do. The atheist heard her praying and thought
> to himself: "I'll fix her."
> He went to the grocery store and bought a whole bunch
> of groceries. He took them to her house placed them on
> the front porch and rang the door bell then hid in the bushes
> to see what she would do. When she opened the door and
> saw the groceries, she began to praise the Lord with all her
> heart, jumping, singing and shoutin' everywhere!
> The atheist jumped out of the bushes and told her, "You
> crazy old lady, God didn't buy you those groceries, I bought
> those groceries!"
> Well, she started running down the street shouting and praising
> the Lord. When he finally caught her, he asked what her
> problem was. She said, "I knew the Lord would provide me
> with some groceries, but I didn't know he was gonna make the
> devil pay for them!"
God often works in mysterious ways.
> As for judging that woman, what does Paul say with regard
> to judgement of others within and without of the church?
> 1 Cor 5:12-13
1Co 5:12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without?
do not ye judge them that are within?
1Co 5:13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away
from among yourselves that wicked person.
> > As David Duchovny said in The Rapture: "It's a drug, but
> > instead of heroin, you do God".
> I take it that you do understand what love is, right?
As Mel Gibson put it in Conspiracy Theory: Geronimo.
> > She said, "I knew the Lord would provide me with
> > some groceries, but I didn't know he was gonna
> > make the devil pay for them!"
> Very, very good! I loved it.
So, if I offer any assistance to those in need as an atheist,
obviously it is the devil paying for it. LMAO
> > As for judging that woman, what does Paul say with regard
> > to judgement of others within and without of the church?
> > 1 Cor 5:12-13
> Paul never knew Christ personally nor served under Him,
> John did.
So Paul never met Christ?
You do realize that what Paul wrote there came from the OT.
> However...since you have at least shown some restraint in
> your use of language when speaking with me, I want to say
> thank you.
It was purely accidental, and before I read some of your other
posts LOL. However, I'll try to continue that restraint unless
of course you make some bonehead post in which I simply
can't resist LOL.
Linda Lee wrote:
> Up from the Abyss wrote:
> > Rod wrote:
> > > Here is a little advice from John, John_7:24 Judge not
> > > according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
> That is not advice from John; those are Christ's words, and he
> is referring to being condemned by others for healing on the
> sabbath day.
> Joh 7:23 If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that
> the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me,
> because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day?
> Joh 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge
> righteous judgment.
> Those words have nothing to do with judging a person for
> buying beer and cigarettes.
And according to Paul, unless she is one of them, God will
judge those without. They are to judge those within, and that
with righteous judgment according to Jesus.
Or better yet, judge not lest you be judged.
> God alone can judge because only He knows all the
> circumstances of a particular situation and all of a
> person's motivations.
Eze 33:20b But I will judge each of you according to your
own ways.
>>> As David Duchovny said in The Rapture: "It's a drug, but
>>> instead of heroin, you do God".
>> I take it that you do understand what love is, right?
> As Mel Gibson put it in Conspiracy Theory: Geronimo.
>>> She said, "I knew the Lord would provide me with
>>> some groceries, but I didn't know he was gonna
>>> make the devil pay for them!"
>> Very, very good! I loved it.
> So, if I offer any assistance to those in need as an atheist,
> obviously it is the devil paying for it.
I don't see it that way.
LMAO
?
>>> As for judging that woman, what does Paul say with regard
>>> to judgement of others within and without of the church?
>>> 1 Cor 5:12-13
>> Paul never knew Christ personally nor served under Him,
>> John did.
> So Paul never met Christ?
> You do realize that what Paul wrote there came from the OT.
And what John wrote came from the new testament, or you might know
it better as the new covenant.
>> However...since you have at least shown some restraint in
>> your use of language when speaking with me, I want to say
>> thank you.
> It was purely accidental, and before I read some of your other
> posts LOL.
That is too bad. I had a first impression that you were a decent person that doesn't need to resort grunts, growls and curses to
talk. Thank you for making me aware that I'm wrong.
However, I'll try to continue that restraint unless
> of course you make some bonehead post in which I simply
> can't resist LOL.
Don't injure yourself on my account. I can kill file you if need be.
-- Planned Parenthood's Medical Director, Mary Calderone,
recognized that "it is hardly ever necessary today
to consider the life of a mother as threatened by a
pregnancy."
"Rod" wrote:
> Up from the Abyss wrote:
> > "Rod" wrote:
> > So, if I offer any assistance to those in need as an
> > atheist, obviously it is the devil paying for it.
> I don't see it that way.
> LMAO
> ?
Laughing My @ss Off.
> > > Paul never knew Christ personally nor served
> > > under Him, John did.
> > So Paul never met Christ?
> > You do realize that what Paul wrote there came from the OT.
> And what John wrote came from the new testament, or you
> might know it better as the new covenant.
OT would be a clue.
So Paul's writings carry less weight than John's?
> > > However...since you have at least shown some
> > > restraint in your use of language when speaking with
> > > me, I want to say thank you.
> > It was purely accidental, and before I read some of your other
> > posts LOL.
> That is too bad. I had a first impression that you were a decent
> person that doesn't need to resort grunts, growls and curses to
> talk. Thank you for making me aware that I'm wrong.
Your reponse above indicates that you had seen my language
prior.
> "Rod" wrote:
> > Up from the Abyss wrote:
> > > "Rod" wrote:
> > > So, if I offer any assistance to those in need as an
> > > atheist, obviously it is the devil paying for it.
> > I don't see it that way.
> > LMAO
> > ?
> Laughing My @ss Off.
> > > > Paul never knew Christ personally nor served
> > > > under Him, John did.
> > > So Paul never met Christ?
> > > You do realize that what Paul wrote there came from the OT.
> > And what John wrote came from the new testament, or you
> > might know it better as the new covenant.
> OT would be a clue.
> So Paul's writings carry less weight than John's?
> > > > However...since you have at least shown some
> > > > restraint in your use of language when speaking with
> > > > me, I want to say thank you.
> > > It was purely accidental, and before I read some of your other
> > > posts LOL.
> > That is too bad. I had a first impression that you were a decent
> > person that doesn't need to resort grunts, growls and curses to
> > talk. Thank you for making me aware that I'm wrong.
> Your response above indicates that you had seen my language
> prior.
He's very high and mighty - until he decides to be lowdown and dirty,
profane and threatening, at which he is one of the 'best'.
> >>> As David Duchovny said in The Rapture: "It's a drug, but
> >>> instead of heroin, you do God".
> >> I take it that you do understand what love is, right?
> > As Mel Gibson put it in Conspiracy Theory: Geronimo.
> >>> She said, "I knew the Lord would provide me with
> >>> some groceries, but I didn't know he was gonna
> >>> make the devil pay for them!"
> >> Very, very good! I loved it.
> > So, if I offer any assistance to those in need as an atheist,
> > obviously it is the devil paying for it.
> I don't see it that way.
> LMAO
> ?
> >>> As for judging that woman, what does Paul say with regard
> >>> to judgement of others within and without of the church?
> >>> 1 Cor 5:12-13
> >> Paul never knew Christ personally nor served under Him,
> >> John did.
> > So Paul never met Christ?
> > You do realize that what Paul wrote there came from the OT.
> And what John wrote came from the new testament, or you might know
> it better as the new covenant.
> >> However...since you have at least shown some restraint in
> >> your use of language when speaking with me, I want to say
> >> thank you.
> > It was purely accidental, and before I read some of your other
> > posts LOL.
> That is too bad. I had a first impression that you were a decent
> person that doesn't need to resort grunts, growls and curses to
> talk. Thank you for making me aware that I'm wrong.
When a person picks the 'nym, "Up from the Abyss," do you think maybe
he was offering you a clue?
>>>> However...since you have at least shown some
>>>> restraint in your use of language when speaking with
>>>> me, I want to say thank you.
>>> It was purely accidental, and before I read some of your other
>>> posts LOL.
>> That is too bad. I had a first impression that you were a decent
>> person that doesn't need to resort grunts, growls and curses to
>> talk. Thank you for making me aware that I'm wrong.
> Your reponse above indicates that you had seen my language
> prior.
And that means what to you...?
-- Planned Parenthood's Medical Director, Mary Calderone,
recognized that "it is hardly ever necessary today
to consider the life of a mother as threatened by a
pregnancy."
> On Nov 25, 8:06 pm, Rod <nhraf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/25/2012 8:51 PM, Up from the Abyss wrote:
>>> "Rod" wrote:
>>>> Up from the Abyss wrote:
>>>>> As David Duchovny said in The Rapture: "It's a drug, but
>>>>> instead of heroin, you do God".
>>>> I take it that you do understand what love is, right?
>>> As Mel Gibson put it in Conspiracy Theory: Geronimo.
>>>>> She said, "I knew the Lord would provide me with
>>>>> some groceries, but I didn't know he was gonna
>>>>> make the devil pay for them!"
>>>> Very, very good! I loved it.
>>> So, if I offer any assistance to those in need as an atheist,
>>> obviously it is the devil paying for it.
>> I don't see it that way.
>> LMAO
>> ?
>>>>> As for judging that woman, what does Paul say with regard
>>>>> to judgement of others within and without of the church?
>>>>> 1 Cor 5:12-13
>>>> Paul never knew Christ personally nor served under Him,
>>>> John did.
>>> So Paul never met Christ?
>>> You do realize that what Paul wrote there came from the OT.
>> And what John wrote came from the new testament, or you might know
>> it better as the new covenant.
>>>> However...since you have at least shown some restraint in
>>>> your use of language when speaking with me, I want to say
>>>> thank you.
>>> It was purely accidental, and before I read some of your other
>>> posts LOL.
>> That is too bad. I had a first impression that you were a decent
>> person that doesn't need to resort grunts, growls and curses to
>> talk. Thank you for making me aware that I'm wrong.
> When a person picks the 'nym, "Up from the Abyss," do you think maybe
> he was offering you a clue?
Who can say for sure, eh ? I once thought you to be a decent human being and instead you turned out to be an ethnic bigot and a racist.
Do find someone else to slander....may I suggest Linda or yourself ??
-- Planned Parenthood's Medical Director, Mary Calderone,
recognized that "it is hardly ever necessary today
to consider the life of a mother as threatened by a
pregnancy."
> On Nov 25, 11:31 pm, "Up from the Abyss" <U...@Abyss.net> wrote:
>> "Rod" wrote:
>>> Up from the Abyss wrote:
>>>> "Rod" wrote:
>>>> So, if I offer any assistance to those in need as an
>>>> atheist, obviously it is the devil paying for it.
>>> I don't see it that way.
>>> LMAO
>>> ?
>> Laughing My @ss Off.
>>>>> Paul never knew Christ personally nor served
>>>>> under Him, John did.
>>>> So Paul never met Christ?
>>>> You do realize that what Paul wrote there came from the OT.
>>> And what John wrote came from the new testament, or you
>>> might know it better as the new covenant.
>> OT would be a clue.
>> So Paul's writings carry less weight than John's?
>>>>> However...since you have at least shown some
>>>>> restraint in your use of language when speaking with
>>>>> me, I want to say thank you.
>>>> It was purely accidental, and before I read some of your other
>>>> posts LOL.
>>> That is too bad. I had a first impression that you were a decent
>>> person that doesn't need to resort grunts, growls and curses to
>>> talk. Thank you for making me aware that I'm wrong.
>> Your response above indicates that you had seen my language
>> prior.
> He's very high and mighty - until he decides to be lowdown and dirty,
> profane and threatening, at which he is one of the 'best'.
Linda...you are so good at thumbing your nose at Christ for His command to believers to follow him...
but alas...a woman scorned....that says it all.
-- Planned Parenthood's Medical Director, Mary Calderone,
recognized that "it is hardly ever necessary today
to consider the life of a mother as threatened by a
pregnancy."
> On Nov 25, 8:06 pm, Rod <nhraf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/25/2012 8:51 PM, Up from the Abyss wrote:
>>> "Rod" wrote:
>>>> Up from the Abyss wrote:
>>>>> As David Duchovny said in The Rapture: "It's a drug, but
>>>>> instead of heroin, you do God".
>>>> I take it that you do understand what love is, right?
>>> As Mel Gibson put it in Conspiracy Theory: Geronimo.
>>>>> She said, "I knew the Lord would provide me with
>>>>> some groceries, but I didn't know he was gonna
>>>>> make the devil pay for them!"
>>>> Very, very good! I loved it.
>>> So, if I offer any assistance to those in need as an atheist,
>>> obviously it is the devil paying for it.
>> I don't see it that way.
>> LMAO
>> ?
>>>>> As for judging that woman, what does Paul say with regard
>>>>> to judgement of others within and without of the church?
>>>>> 1 Cor 5:12-13
>>>> Paul never knew Christ personally nor served under Him,
>>>> John did.
>>> So Paul never met Christ?
>>> You do realize that what Paul wrote there came from the OT.
>> And what John wrote came from the new testament, or you might know
>> it better as the new covenant.
>>>> However...since you have at least shown some restraint in
>>>> your use of language when speaking with me, I want to say
>>>> thank you.
>>> It was purely accidental, and before I read some of your other
>>> posts LOL.
>> That is too bad. I had a first impression that you were a decent
>> person that doesn't need to resort grunts, growls and curses to
>> talk. Thank you for making me aware that I'm wrong.
> When a person picks the 'nym, "Up from the Abyss," do you think maybe
> he was offering you a clue?
> TCross
Ya think ???
-- Planned Parenthood's Medical Director, Mary Calderone,
recognized that "it is hardly ever necessary today
to consider the life of a mother as threatened by a
pregnancy."
> On Nov 25, 8:29 pm, "Up from the Abyss" <U...@Abyss.net> wrote:
>> "Rod" wrote:
>>> Here is a little advice from John, John_7:24 Judge not
>>> according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
> That is not advice from John; those are Christ's words, and he is
> referring to being condemned by others for healing on the sabbath day.
yet those words can be applied to everyday life, and should be.
> Joh 7:23 If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the
> law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have
> made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day?
> Joh 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous
> judgment.
> Those words have nothing to do with judging a person for buying beer
> and cigarettes. Who knows? They could have been provided for her by
> someone else as a gift for her birthday, or it could have been
> something she was sent to pick up for someone else.
Uh huh, while she is cracking open a brew and opening the cartoon
of cigarettes, fumbling the pack in search of a smoke...yeah, I was
watching...
I've never seen anyone so desperate for a puff in my life.
<snipped the remainder of excuses for this one con artist...>
-- Planned Parenthood's Medical Director, Mary Calderone,
recognized that "it is hardly ever necessary today
to consider the life of a mother as threatened by a
pregnancy."
> > On Nov 25, 11:31 pm, "Up from the Abyss" <U...@Abyss.net> wrote:
> >> "Rod" wrote:
> >>> Up from the Abyss wrote:
> >>>> "Rod" wrote:
> >>>> So, if I offer any assistance to those in need as an
> >>>> atheist, obviously it is the devil paying for it.
> >>> I don't see it that way.
> >>> LMAO
> >>> ?
> >> Laughing My @ss Off.
> >>>>> Paul never knew Christ personally nor served
> >>>>> under Him, John did.
> >>>> So Paul never met Christ?
> >>>> You do realize that what Paul wrote there came from the OT.
> >>> And what John wrote came from the new testament, or you
> >>> might know it better as the new covenant.
> >> OT would be a clue.
> >> So Paul's writings carry less weight than John's?
> >>>>> However...since you have at least shown some
> >>>>> restraint in your use of language when speaking with
> >>>>> me, I want to say thank you.
> >>>> It was purely accidental, and before I read some of your other
> >>>> posts LOL.
> >>> That is too bad. I had a first impression that you were a decent
> >>> person that doesn't need to resort grunts, growls and curses to
> >>> talk. Thank you for making me aware that I'm wrong.
> >> Your response above indicates that you had seen my language
> >> prior.
> > He's very high and mighty - until he decides to be lowdown and dirty,
> > profane and threatening, at which he is one of the 'best'.
> Linda...you are so good at thumbing your nose at Christ for His
> command to believers to follow him...
> but alas...a woman scorned....that says it all.
"A woman scorned" is a foolish reference to the Male Chauvinist fancy
that women are meaningful only in their relations to men.
