All Souls Day Special
pnyikos
the day Catholics the world over remember all who have died. The
first reading was from the opening verses of Chapter 3 of the Book of
Wisdom, which the Roman Catholic Church includes in the canon of the
Bible. Most Protestant denominations consider it one of the
Apocrypha, but I think all officially subscribe to the hope expressed
in the opening verses:
"The souls of the just are in the hand of God,
and no torment shall touch them. They seemed,
in the view of the foolish, to be dead; and their
passing away was thought to be an affliction and
their going forth to death, utter destruction. But the
are in peace...
...the LORD shall be their King forever. Those who
trust in him shall understand truth, and the faithful
shall abide with him in love..."
I don't think I could long bear to contemplate the fate of millions of
unborn children who are aborted each year, including tens of thousands
of viable ones, many of whom are torn limb from limb while still
alive, were it not for the hope (sometimes strong, sometimes almost
vanishingly faint) that this passage is not only true but applies to
these unfortunates as well. For them, and to all the women who are
killed in abortion, and indeed for all the dead, past, present, and
future, I joined in the prayer:
*Pie Jesu Domine, dona eis requiem sempiternam.*
Merciful Lord Jesus, grant them rest everlasting.
Peter Nyikos
james g. keegan jr.
<56c2a303-3f64-4f3d...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> I returned about an hour ago from a Mass celebrating All Souls Day,
and apparently ignored all of the outstanding challenges to your
misrepresentations, whoever you are.
Ray Fischer
>I returned about an hour ago from a Mass celebrating All Souls Day,
>the day Catholics the world over remember all who have died.
Get real. It's all a sham. A charade. Feel-good ritual with the
intent of forgetting those who die.
> The
>first reading was from the opening verses of Chapter 3 of the Book of
>Wisdom, which the Roman Catholic Church includes in the canon of the
Now explain to us why we should give a shit about Catholic church
propaganda.
[...]
>I don't think I could long bear to contemplate the fate of millions of
>unborn children who are aborted each year, including tens of thousands
Sure you can, bigot. You already do. While you sit on yooiur lying,
hypocritical ass you are letting children die of hunger at the rate of
a couple every minute. While you sit in your comfortable home and
spend money to show the world how disgustingly immoral you are,
children are starving for want of $1 per day worth of food and clean
water.
The TRUTH is that you are just a control freak who wants to force
people to obey you, and you really don't care at all how many people
die so that you can get what you want.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >I returned about an hour ago from a Mass celebrating All Souls Day,
> >the day Catholics the world over remember all who have died.
>
> Get real. It's all a sham. A charade. Feel-good ritual with the
> intent of forgetting those who die.
Your mindless and heartless version of atheism is of no interest to
me, Ray.
> > The
> >first reading was from the opening verses of Chapter 3 of the Book of
> >Wisdom, which the Roman Catholic Church includes in the canon of the
[...]
> >I don't think I could long bear to contemplate the fate of millions of
> >unborn children who are aborted each year, including tens of thousands
>
> Sure you can, bigot. You already do. While you sit on yooiur lying,
> hypocritical ass you are letting children die of hunger at the rate of
> a couple every minute. While you sit in your comfortable home and
> spend money to show the world how disgustingly immoral you are,
As I've said several times, at least once in reply to you, I spend
about $10 per year on anti-abortion causes and over $1000 per year on
charity to help just such unfortunate souls as the ones you describe
next:
> children are starving for want of $1 per day worth of food and clean
> water.
How much do YOU contribute to charity each year, you who once said, "I
don't give a shit about women" and later lied through your teeth about
the context in which you said it?
> The TRUTH is that
you are a pathological liar, Ray, as I've demonstrated many times, as
in posts 4-7 of the following thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.abortion/browse_frm/thread/7080f944f432159f/7fcf71bc10c57632?tvc=1&q=insubject%3ASimulation+author%3Anyikos2%40bellsouth.net#7fcf71bc10c57632
[baseless libel by Fischer deleted]
Peter Nyikos
Spartakus
> I returned about an hour ago from a Mass celebrating All Souls Day,
> the day Catholics the world over remember all who have died.
You mean the holiday that was derived from pagan holidays like the
Celtic Samhain?
Felice Dia de los Muertos, whoever you are!
Spartakus
> I returned about an hour ago from a Mass celebrating All Souls Day,
> the day Catholics the world over remember all who have died.
You mean the holiday that was derived from pagan holidays like the
Ray Fischer
>On Nov 2, 9:53 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >I returned about an hour ago from a Mass celebrating All Souls Day,
>> >the day Catholics the world over remember all who have died.
>>
>> Get real. It's all a sham. A charade. Feel-good ritual with the
>> intent of forgetting those who die.
>
>Your mindless and heartless version of atheism
So not only are you a dishonest sleazebag, you're also a senile moron.
>> >I don't think I could long bear to contemplate the fate of millions of
>> >unborn children who are aborted each year, including tens of thousands
>>
>> Sure you can, bigot. You already do. While you sit on yooiur lying,
>> hypocritical ass you are letting children die of hunger at the rate of
>> a couple every minute. While you sit in your comfortable home and
>> spend money to show the world how disgustingly immoral you are,
>
>As I've said several times, at least once in reply to you, I spend
>about $10 per year on anti-abortion causes and over $1000 per year on
>charity
I'll tell you the same thing you tell pregnant women:
DO MORE! DIE if necessary in order to save lives, you stinking
hypocrite.
>> children are starving for want of $1 per day worth of food and clean
>> water.
>
>How much do YOU contribute to charity each year,
More than I demand of others, hypocrite. You, on the other hand, are
an asshole who would enslave women and force them to DIE while you sit
on your lying ass and dare to pass judgement.
Your evil cult has corrupted you.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
duke
Great statement, Peter.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
>>I don't think I could long bear to contemplate the fate of millions of
>>unborn children
>Which do not exist.
Ah, the challenge to the mentally ill.
james g. keegan jr.
<190218c8-9350-4849...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Nov 2, 9:53 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > >I returned about an hour ago from a Mass celebrating All Souls Day,
> > >the day Catholics the world over remember all who have died.
> >
> > Get real. It's all a sham. A charade. Feel-good ritual with the
> > intent of forgetting those who die.
>
> Your mindless and heartless version of atheism is of no interest to
> me, Ray.
then why did you presume that your idol worship of a criminal sect was
of interest to anyone else?
raven1
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>*Pie Jesu Domine, dona eis requiem
<whacks self in forehead with a board>
raven1
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>I returned about an hour ago from a Mass celebrating All Souls Day
And felt the need to share this on alt.atheism why?
The Chief Instigator
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 04:17:24 -0500, Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>
>>>I don't think I could long bear to contemplate the fate of millions of
>>>unborn children
>
>>Which do not exist.
>
> Ah, the challenge to the mentally ill.
You should know, having the requisite disability.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Texas 3, Houston 1 (October 30)
NEXT GAME:Thursday, November 5 vs. Manitoba, 5:05
The Chief Instigator
Because from all appearances, it's a fake Peter Nyikos (the real one was and
still might be faculty at The USC - that's South Carolina) who crept in to
see how much he can irritate newsgroups he doesn't agree with.
The Chief Instigator
> On Nov 2, 9:53 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >I returned about an hour ago from a Mass celebrating All Souls Day,
>> >the day Catholics the world over remember all who have died.
>>
>> Get real. It's all a sham. A charade. Feel-good ritual with the
>> intent of forgetting those who die.
>
> Your mindless and heartless version of atheism is of no interest to
> me, Ray.
Your deepening senility (assuming it's actually you) has pretty much
deprived you of a grasp of atheism, Phony.
duke
>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 05:46:09 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 04:17:24 -0500, Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>
>>>>I don't think I could long bear to contemplate the fate of millions of
>>>>unborn children
>>
>>>Which do not exist.
>>
>> Ah, the challenge to the mentally ill.
>
>You should know, having the requisite disability.
And, I'm still your intellectual superior, west loop.
Jimbo
> On 04 Nov 2009 02:38:58 GMT, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 05:46:09 -0600, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 04:17:24 -0500, Attila <<procho...@here.now> wrote:
>
> >>>>I don't think I could long bear to contemplate the fate of millions of
> >>>>unborn children
>
> >>>Which do not exist.
>
> >> Ah, the challenge to the mentally ill.
>
> >You should know, having the requisite disability.
>
> And, I'm still your intellectual superior,
You have yet to prove that assertion. As far as anyone can tell,
you're a complete idiot.
Ray Fischer
>On 04 Nov 2009 02:38:58 GMT, The Chief Instigator <pat...@io.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 05:46:09 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 04:17:24 -0500, Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>I don't think I could long bear to contemplate the fate of millions of
>>>>>unborn children
>>>
>>>>Which do not exist.
>>>
>>> Ah, the challenge to the mentally ill.
>>
>>You should know, having the requisite disability.
>
>And, I'm still your intellectual superior,
Impossible. You have no intellect.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Nov 2, 9:53 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >I returned about an hour ago from a Mass celebrating All Souls Day,
> >> >the day Catholics the world over remember all who have died.
>
> >> Get real. It's all a sham. A charade. Feel-good ritual with the
> >> intent of forgetting those who die.
>
> >Your mindless and heartless version of atheism
>
> So not only are you a dishonest sleazebag, you're also a senile moron.
TbBA.
> >> >I don't think I could long bear to contemplate the fate of millions of
> >> >unborn children who are aborted each year, including tens of thousands
>
> >> Sure you can, bigot. You already do.
Exactly, and in the words Ray deleted, I explained EXACTLY the reasons
why I *can* bear it, namely the hope I have that death isn't the end
of everything.
>> > While you sit on yooiur lying,
> >> hypocritical ass you are letting children die of hunger at the rate of
> >> a couple every minute. While you sit in your comfortable home and
> >> spend money to show the world how disgustingly immoral you are,
Note the refutation below:
> >As I've said several times, at least once in reply to you, I spend
> >about $10 per year on anti-abortion causes and over $1000 per year on
> >charity
In contrast, Ray gave NO figures below on how much he contributes.
And now comes a typical Fischer one-size-fits-all screed which may fit
Judie Brown but is downright libelous where someone like myself is the
subject.
> I'll tell you the same thing you tell pregnant women:
By YOUR hate-crazed standards, Ray, it is what YOU tell women whose
fetuses are viable.
Go ahead and live by your standards if you must, but I live by
reasonable adult standards.
> DO MORE! DIE if necessary in order to save lives, you stinking
> hypocrite.
Get a life, you hate-spewing excuse for a human being.
> >> children are starving for want of $1 per day worth of food and clean
> >> water.
>
> >How much do YOU contribute to charity each year,
>
> More than I demand of others, hypocrite.
In other words, you could be contributing $1 per year while only
*demanding* that others contribute 50 cents per year, but indulging in
blatantly dishonest and hypocritical misdirection as in your screeds
above.
[hate-driven finale by Ray deleted]
Peter Nyikos
panam...@hotmail.com
snip
Okay, let's talk "reason". You compose an idiotic superstitous screed,
and then add alt.atheism to the list of groups you send it to. Now you
whine and complain when someone free from your nonsense treats your
post the way it *should* be in this group.
Why did you send it to us in the first place? We don't care about your
superstion, or the tribal chanting & shamanistic garbage surrounding
them. What are you trying to achieve? Did you think you would find a
`fellow traveler' here? And if the intent of your little post was to
impress people with your insipid fairy tales, then it was a major
failure.
Ray's replies are an adequate response to either one of these
scenarios. In fact, I admire his restraint. Personally, I would have
told you to take your moronic dead-jew-on-a-stick and shove him up
your ass.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!
Christopher A. Lee
You don't understand - giving these bigoted, in-your-face, idiots
the response their aggressive stupidity deserves, is unprovoked
"hatred and dishonesty" in their sociopathic wordl view.
They don't understand the difference between their action and a
reaction which wouldn't even have happened.
Nor do they understand that unlike them we are not commanded to turn
the other cheek.
Jimbo
> On Nov 4, 1:17 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> Okay, let's talk "reason".
You've already lost him. :D
The Chief Instigator
> On 04 Nov 2009 02:38:58 GMT, The Chief Instigator <pat...@io.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 05:46:09 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 04:17:24 -0500, Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>I don't think I could long bear to contemplate the fate of millions of
>>>>>unborn children
>>>
>>>>Which do not exist.
>>>
>>> Ah, the challenge to the mentally ill.
>>
>>You should know, having the requisite disability.
>
> And, I'm still your intellectual superior, west loop.
Just more Dook self-worship. Stick the Vatican where the moon don't shine,
Pope and all. (That's my opinion.)
pnyikos
>
> snip
>
> Okay, let's talk "reason". You compose an idiotic superstitous screed,
> and then add alt.atheism to the list of groups you send it to. Now you
> whine and complain when someone free from your nonsense treats your
> post the way it *should* be in this group.
Well, if you are representative of the participants in a.a. these
days, there's been a huge sea-change in the group since the early
90's. Back then, there were lots of thoughtful atheists around. I
even recall a classification of atheists, one of which was that of a
"soft atheist". I can't recall the exact definition, but it was
something like an agnostic who simply orders his life as though there
were no supernatural.
> Why did you send it to us in the first place? We don't care about your
> superstion, or the tribal chanting & shamanistic garbage surrounding
> them.
Who is "we?" Do you speak for all regulars in the newsgroup now? I've
met lots of atheists who have a decent respect for the faith of
Christians, especially the belief and/or hope in a life after death
which is what my post mostly had to do with.
Are you really happy with the idea that billions of people have died
under the most miserable circumstances, never having had the comforts
and joys that we have, and that misery was the sum total of their
experiences?
Or do you shut the idea out of your mind and act like the people
described by Mark Shea in today's _Catholic Exchange_?
-------------- begin excerpt
The world is all about trying to keep its life. So it prattles on as
though you and I are not going to die but live forever in a sort of
eternal dream of the Pepsi Generation. This is worldly hope and it
leads inevitably to worldly despair. That’s what is fueling the
present movement toward euthanasia. A post-Christian culture that
gives up on God inevitably gives up on real hope. The world says, “If
I can’t have eternal Pepsi Generation happiness then, by golly, I’m
going to assert my power one last time and end it all on my terms!”
That’s despair as old and weary as Adam.
----------------- end of excerpt from
http://catholicexchange.com/2009/11/04/114739/
Peter Nyikos
james g. keegan jr.
<744d7535-2fc5-4491...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Nov 4, 1:44�pm, panamfl...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 1:17�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > Okay, let's talk "reason". You compose an idiotic superstitous screed,
> > and then add alt.atheism to the list of groups you send it to. Now you
> > whine and complain when someone free from your nonsense treats your
> > post the way it *should* be in this group.
>
> Well, if you are representative of the participants in a.a. these
> days, there's been a huge sea-change in the group since the early
> 90's.
note how the person posting as peter nyikos completely ignores the fact
that several a.a. regulars said more or less the same thing to him and
then presumes to tell those readers what "he/she" thinks they should
read.
Ray Fischer
hypocrite whose only agenda is to subjugate women.
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>On Nov 3, 1:11�am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> pnyikos �<nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >On Nov 2, 9:53 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >> pnyikos �<nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> >I don't think I could long bear to contemplate the fate of millions of
>> >> >unborn children who are aborted each year, including tens of thousands
>>
>> >> Sure you can, bigot. �You already do.
>
>Exactly, and in the words Ray deleted, I explained EXACTLY the reasons
>why I *can* bear it,
Because you're a coldhearted hypocrite whose real agenda is the
subjugation of women. Like more insane religious lunatics you think
that any crime is justified by the prospect of heaven.
> namely the hope I have that death isn't the end
>of everything.
Then why are you anti-abortion?
You can't even keep your story straight.
>>> > �While you sit on yooiur lying,
>> >> hypocritical ass you are letting children die of hunger at the rate of
>> >> a couple every minute. �While you sit in your comfortable home and
>> >> spend money to show the world how disgustingly immoral you are,
>
>> >As I've said several times, at least once in reply to you, I spend
>> >about $10 per year on anti-abortion causes and over $1000 per year on
>> >charity
>
>In contrast, Ray gave NO figures below on how much he contributes.
Notice that fauxNy thinks it's fine for HIM to let people die so long
as he makes his token payment. After all, he pays $1000 so it's okay
for him to demand that people give up their lives.
>> I'll tell you the same thing you tell pregnant women:
>
>By YOUR hate-crazed standards,
YOU are the lying hypocrite. Not me.
>> DO MORE! �DIE if necessary in order to save lives, you stinking
>> hypocrite.
>
>Get a life,
YOU are the perverted conbtrolk freak sticking your nose into people's
private affairs. Not me.
>> >> children are starving for want of $1 per day worth of food and clean
>> >> water.
>>
>> >How much do YOU contribute to charity each year,
>>
>> More than I demand of others, hypocrite.
>
>In other words, you could be contributing $1 per year while only
>*demanding* that others contribute 50 cents per year,
But I don't demand that anybody give. I'm not a sleazebag hypocrite
like you. I don't LIE to people, claiming that I care about people's
lives while callously letting them die.
You are.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Nov 4, 1:44�pm, panamfl...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Why did you send it to us in the first place? We don't care about your
>> superstion, or the tribal chanting & shamanistic garbage surrounding
>> them.
>
>Who is "we?" Do you speak for all regulars in the newsgroup now? I've
>met lots of atheists who have a decent respect for the faith of
YOU don't even respect your religion, fauxNy. You're just an arrogant
hypocrite who prays on the street corners so that you might earn the
respect of others. If you do know what Jesus taught then you
certainly don't care to be bothered to follow His teachings.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
panam...@hotmail.com
> On Nov 4, 1:44 pm, panamfl...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Nov 4, 1:17 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > snip
>
> > Okay, let's talk "reason". You compose an idiotic superstitous screed,
> > and then add alt.atheism to the list of groups you send it to. Now you
> > whine and complain when someone free from your nonsense treats your
> > post the way it *should* be in this group.
>
> Well, if you are representative of the participants in a.a. these
> days, there's been a huge sea-change in the group since the early
> 90's.
And people like you, who post nonsensical garbage about your insipid
superstitions, are the *very* reason for that change.
> Back then, there were lots of thoughtful atheists around. I
> even recall a classification of atheists, one of which was that of a
> "soft atheist". I can't recall the exact definition, but it was
> something like an agnostic who simply orders his life as though there
> were no supernatural.
The "classification" is "strong atheist" (i.e., "I think gods do not
exist") and "weak atheism" (i.e., "there may be gods, I've just not
seen any evidence for them"). This group was actually created for
those of us who actually *are* atheists to discuss such differences,
and also to discuss the difficulties of living as free people within
societies full of the slaves of supernaturalism.
Also, there is a *reason* there are two separate groups for atheism
and agnostics. Those are actually two very different topics. Atheism
is the topic of "existence", agnosticism is the topic of "knowledge".
Personally, I consider the agnostic position as a flimsy one, since
the very question of "knowledge" of gods is a version of special
pleading for the concept in the first place.
> > Why did you send it to us in the first place? We don't care about your
> > superstion, or the tribal chanting & shamanistic garbage surrounding
> > them.
>
> Who is "we?" Do you speak for all regulars in the newsgroup now?
No, I don't. But I'll betcha I come pretty close to expressing their
opinions as well.
BTW: If I had a Euro for every time one of you morons have tried to
distract me with this red herring, I could buy a new BMW. Continue to
ignore the replies you recieve from the other regulars at your own
peril.
> I've
> met lots of atheists who have a decent respect for the faith of
> Christians,
You must be living in Europe. Those of us who live in countries where
the "believers" in Christian mythology still threatens people's hopes
for building a truly modern human society have no such "respect" for
your insipid death cult.
> especially the belief and/or hope in a life after death
> which is what my post mostly had to do with.
A "life after death"? Your delusions are *your* problem, not mine.
Quit whining about my lack of respect for your idiocy. Or, as an
alternative...prove that an "afterlife" actually exists in the first
place. Your Nobel Prize awaits you.
> Are you really happy with the idea that billions of people have died
> under the most miserable circumstances, never having had the comforts
> and joys that we have, and that misery was the sum total of their
> experiences?
No, I am not. Especially since even a casual observation of
superstition should show that it's often the substitute for their
powerlessness to take action against the various social situations
that cause their misery.
> Or do you shut the idea out of your mind and act like the people
> described by Mark Shea in today's _Catholic Exchange_?
>
> -------------- begin excerpt
> The world is all about trying to keep its life. So it prattles on as
> though you and I are not going to die but live forever in a sort of
> eternal dream of the Pepsi Generation. This is worldly hope and it
> leads inevitably to worldly despair. That’s what is fueling the
> present movement toward euthanasia. A post-Christian culture that
> gives up on God inevitably gives up on real hope. The world says, “If
> I can’t have eternal Pepsi Generation happiness then, by golly, I’m
> going to assert my power one last time and end it all on my terms!”
> That’s despair as old and weary as Adam.
> ----------------- end of excerpt fromhttp://catholicexchange.com/2009/11/04/114739/
ROFL! The addicted druggie spouts garbage about why it's so cool to
keep using the drug. And does so, by framing his desire to keep
mainlining that shit with "popular culture" references!
Did you *really* think that pathetic garbage would lead anyone who
knows what kind of poison religion actually is to reconsider their
stance on your idiocy? Presupposition that your moronic superstion is
"true". Presupposition that anyone who hasn't been exposed to it
actually gives a shit about it. Presupposition that people free from
that nonsense should "respect" it any more than they "respect" the
notion that seals play Frisbee Golf on Ganymede, or that the Brooklyn
Bridge was built by UFOs.
If you *really* think there's no difference between these different
concepts, you're dumber than even *I* thought you were.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
Jimbo
> On Nov 4, 1:44 pm, panamfl...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Nov 4, 1:17 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > snip
>
> > Okay, let's talk "reason". You compose an idiotic superstitous screed,
> > and then add alt.atheism to the list of groups you send it to. Now you
> > whine and complain when someone free from your nonsense treats your
> > post the way it *should* be in this group.
>
> Well, if you are representative of the participants in a.a. these
> days, there's been a huge sea-change in the group since the early
> 90's.
There's no need to sugarcoat what you are doing in alt.atheism, I've
seen your posts. You're little more than a troll.
Jimbo
> In article
> <744d7535-2fc5-4491-a24f-c1cb4d42b...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Exactly.
x
> This is where nyikos reallly shows his credentials as an immoral
> hypocrite whose only agenda is to subjugate women.
>
> pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 3, 1:11 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 2, 9:53 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>> I don't think I could long bear to contemplate the fate of millions of
>>>>>> unborn children who are aborted each year, including tens of thousands
>>>>> Sure you can, bigot. You already do.
>> Exactly, and in the words Ray deleted, I explained EXACTLY the reasons
>> why I *can* bear it,
>
> Because you're a coldhearted hypocrite whose real agenda is the
> subjugation of women.
Not if they are in utero.
>
>> namely the hope I have that death isn't the end
>> of everything.
>
> Then why are you anti-abortion?
>
> You can't even keep your story straight.
>
>>>>> While you sit on yooiur lying,
>>>>> hypocritical ass you are letting children die of hunger at the rate of
>>>>> a couple every minute. While you sit in your comfortable home and
>>>>> spend money to show the world how disgustingly immoral you are,
>>>> As I've said several times, at least once in reply to you, I spend
>>>> about $10 per year on anti-abortion causes and over $1000 per year on
>>>> charity
>> In contrast, Ray gave NO figures below on how much he contributes.
>
> Notice that fauxNy thinks it's fine for HIM to let people die so long
> as he makes his token payment.
I noticed no such thing
>>> I'll tell you the same thing you tell pregnant women:
>> By YOUR hate-crazed standards,
>
> YOU are the lying hypocrite. Not me.
>
>>> DO MORE! DIE if necessary in order to save lives, you stinking
>>> hypocrite.
>> Get a life,
>
> YOU are the perverted conbtrolk freak sticking your nose into people's
> private affairs. Not me.
Stop trying to control anti-abortionists.
>
>>>>> children are starving for want of $1 per day worth of food and clean
>>>>> water.
>>>> How much do YOU contribute to charity each year,
>>> More than I demand of others, hypocrite.
>> In other words, you could be contributing $1 per year while only
>> *demanding* that others contribute 50 cents per year,
>
> But I don't demand that anybody give. I'm not a sleazebag hypocrite
> like you.
You are in a league of your own.
duke
>pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>I returned about an hour ago from a Mass celebrating All Souls Day,
>>the day Catholics the world over remember all who have died.
>
>Get real. It's all a sham. A charade. Feel-good ritual with the
>intent of forgetting those who die.
No thanks, fishboy. We'll stick with reality.
duke
And, I'm still your intellectual superior.
duke
Then why is it so easy for me to put you down?
duke
>On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 06:12:13 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On 04 Nov 2009 02:38:58 GMT, The Chief Instigator <pat...@io.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 05:46:09 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 04:17:24 -0500, Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>I don't think I could long bear to contemplate the fate of millions of
>>>>>>unborn children
>>>>
>>>>>Which do not exist.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, the challenge to the mentally ill.
>>>
>>>You should know, having the requisite disability.
>>
>> And, I'm still your intellectual superior, west loop.
>
>Just more Dook self-worship. Stick the Vatican where the moon don't shine,
>Pope and all. (That's my opinion.)
Nobody cares what your opinion is, west loop.
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> This is where nyikos reallly shows his credentials as an immoral
>> hypocrite whose only agenda is to subjugate women.
>>
>> pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> On Nov 3, 1:11 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 2, 9:53 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> I don't think I could long bear to contemplate the fate of millions of
>>>>>>> unborn children who are aborted each year, including tens of thousands
>>>>>> Sure you can, bigot. You already do.
>>> Exactly, and in the words Ray deleted, I explained EXACTLY the reasons
>>> why I *can* bear it,
>>
>> Because you're a coldhearted hypocrite whose real agenda is the
>> subjugation of women.
>
>Not if they are in utero.
1) That's a tacit admission that you care only about fetuses.
2) There are no women in utero - never have been.
>>> namely the hope I have that death isn't the end
>>> of everything.
>>
>> Then why are you anti-abortion?
>>
>> You can't even keep your story straight.
>>
>>>>>> While you sit on yooiur lying,
>>>>>> hypocritical ass you are letting children die of hunger at the rate of
>>>>>> a couple every minute. While you sit in your comfortable home and
>>>>>> spend money to show the world how disgustingly immoral you are,
>>>>> As I've said several times, at least once in reply to you, I spend
>>>>> about $10 per year on anti-abortion causes and over $1000 per year on
>>>>> charity
>>> In contrast, Ray gave NO figures below on how much he contributes.
>>
>> Notice that fauxNy thinks it's fine for HIM to let people die so long
>> as he makes his token payment.
>
>I noticed no such thing
That's because you're an insane cultist.
>>>> I'll tell you the same thing you tell pregnant women:
>>> By YOUR hate-crazed standards,
>>
>> YOU are the lying hypocrite. Not me.
>>
>>>> DO MORE! DIE if necessary in order to save lives, you stinking
>>>> hypocrite.
>>> Get a life,
>>
>> YOU are the perverted conbtrolk freak sticking your nose into people's
>> private affairs. Not me.
>
>Stop trying to control anti-abortionists.
Stop being a terrorist.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On 04 Nov 2009 17:45:18 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>On 04 Nov 2009 02:38:58 GMT, The Chief Instigator <pat...@io.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 05:46:09 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 04:17:24 -0500, Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>I don't think I could long bear to contemplate the fate of millions of
>>>>>>>unborn children
>>>>>
>>>>>>Which do not exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, the challenge to the mentally ill.
>>>>
>>>>You should know, having the requisite disability.
>>>
>>>And, I'm still your intellectual superior,
>>
>>Impossible. You have no intellect.
>
>Then why is it so easy for me to put you down?
You only believe that because you're insane.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
pnyikos
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 18:41:43 -0800 (PST), pnyikos
> <nyik...@bellsouth.net> in alt.abortion with message-id
> <56c2a303-3f64-4f3d-9f97-e750302a1...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >I returned about an hour ago from a Mass celebrating AllSoulsDay,
> >first reading was from the opening verses of Chapter 3 of the Book of
> >Wisdom, which the Roman Catholic Church includes in the canon of the
> >Bible. Most Protestant denominations consider it one of the
> >Apocrypha, but I think all officially subscribe to the hope expressed
> >in the opening verses:
>
> >"Thesoulsof the just are in the hand of God,
> >and no torment shall touch them. They seemed,
> >in the view of the foolish, to be dead; and their
> >passing away was thought to be an affliction and
> >their going forth to death, utter destruction. But the
> >are in peace...
> >...the LORD shall be their King forever. Those who
> >trust in him shall understand truth, and the faithful
> >shall abide with him in love..."
>
> >I don't think I could long bear to contemplate the fate of millions of
> >unborn children
>
> Which do not exist.
Prepare for a shocker: the Oxford English Dictionary lists, as the
first meaning of "child," a meaning that explicitly includes unborn
human beings, and even lists "foetus" as one of the synonyms. The
Merriam-Webster Collegiate dictionary does the same, except that the
word that should shock you is spelled "fetus".
The real shocker, for you, is that neither definition is labeled
"obsolete" or even "archaic."
> >who are aborted each year, including tens of thousands
> >of viable ones
>
> A fetus is not a child
False, see above.
>ant viability is irrelevant.
Even Ray Fischer recognizes it as relevant. And the reason it is
relevant is that if the woman wants to terminate the pregnancy after
the fetus becomes viable, she can do it by having labor induced, and
then it is not even an abortion but a (usually premature) live birth.
And, usually, the induction of labor method is at least as safe as the
other methods, one of which is described below and called "D&E",
variously expanded as "dilation and evacuation" and (more accurately)
as "dismemberment and evacuation."
> >, many of whom are torn limb from limb while still
> >alive, were it not for the hope (sometimes strong, sometimes almost
> >vanishingly faint) that this passage is not only true but applies to
> >these unfortunates as well. For them, and to all the women who are
> >killed in abortion, and indeed for all the dead, past, present, and
> >future, I joined in the prayer:
>
> >*Pie Jesu Domine, dona eis requiem sempiternam.*
> >Merciful Lord Jesus, grant them rest everlasting.
>
> Prove any such person ever existed.
You are missing the point. In the prayer, the way I mean it, is
implicit the conditional, "if a merciful entity named Jesus can hear
this and can do it, ..." and if you hadn't deleted so much, it would
be clear that it is included.
[Actually the historical figure was called something like Yeshua, but
saying "Jesu" or "Jesus" is like calling me Pedro or Piotr instead
of Peter--I don't mind it at all, I'll answer to it.]
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:15:33 -0500, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 18:41:43 -0800 (PST), pnyikos
> ><nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >>I returned about an hour ago from a Mass celebrating AllSoulsDay
>
>
> Because from all appearances,
Hogwash.
>it's a fake Peter Nyikos (the real one was and
> still might be faculty at The USC
What do you, a stalker from way back, mean by saying "might"? The
merest neophyte at using Google or Yahoo internet searches can find
the website for the Department of Mathematics at the University of
South Carolina, and click on "Departmental Directory," and find my
name and e-mail address listed under Faculty.
You certainly have been earning the nickname "Chief Idiot" lately. I
found it especially hilarious how you didn't even recognize something
Boo Radley posted as satire--even though it was the kind of satire you
would indulge in, if you had more upstairs.
Was Spartakus telling everyone a tall tale by saying that you could
figure out his location within one second of an arc of the earth's
circumference, both latitude and longitude, just by the information in
the headers of Spartakus's posts?
>- that's South Carolina) who crept in to
> see how much he can irritate newsgroups he doesn't agree with.
I happened to agree with a lot of atheists, back when I was within a
hair's breadth of becoming one. I admit, the All Souls Day special
wasn't the most diplomatic thing to crosspost there, but I've been
involved in LOTS of crossposts to a.atheism in the past year, and no
one batted an eye until now.
> --
> Patrick L. "The Chief
Idiot" Humphrey
Peter Nyikos
Instigator" Humphrey (patr...@io.com) Houston, Texas
> www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php(TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
pnyikos
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 19:13:00 -0800 (PST), pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 2, 9:53 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> >I returned about an hour ago from a Mass celebrating AllSoulsDay,
> >> >the day Catholics the world over remember all who have died.
>
> >> intent of forgetting those who die.
>
> > me, Ray.
There are lots of versions of atheism, some of them deserving of great
respect . [Even Chesterton agreed in the midst of a brilliant essay
explaining why he was a Christian.] But Ray's version is both
mindless and heartless.
> Your deepening senility (assuming it's actually you) has pretty much
> deprived you of a grasp of atheism, Phony.
On the contrary, it is you whose grasp of atheism is slipping away,
Chief Idiot. How else to explain the following post?
Note how it was crossposted to alt.atheism and how, even though you
and Boo Radley are kindred spirits where Christianity is concerned,
even he agreed that you were dumb enough to miss the point of his
satire.
=============== begin included post
Newsgroups: alt.abortion, alt.atheism, alt.religion.christian.roman-
catholic, soc.culture.jewish
From: "Boo Radley" <Kill...@mockingbird.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:25:27 -0400
Local: Fri, Oct 30 2009 6:25 pm
Subject: Re: Urinating On Jesus
"pnyikos" <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:059d58b3-e02c-4da7-
b692-080...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> On Oct 30, 1:39 am, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:50:38 -0400, Boo Radley <Kill...@mockingbird.com>
>> wrote:
>> > "The Chief Instigator" <patr...@io.com> wrote in message
>> >news:slrnheiarp....@eris.io.com...
>> >> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 01:45:27 -0400, J <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>> >>> URINATING ONJESUS
>> >>> October 26, 2009
>> >> [typical Junkie Young feigned outrage given a game misconduct]
>> >> If there ever was such a person, he's only been dead about 1980 years
>> >> by
>> >> now, so maybe you should pick a saner cause to whore for.
>> >Jesuscame back in Missouri and he smited the Indians for killing the
>> >real
>> > Native Americans that were white so he blighted them with red skin. He
>> > is
>> > risen, I read it on a license plate so it's real. Wear your magic
>> > underwear and you can ride the Unicorn
>> Too bad you're full of your own delusions...
> Incredible. You can't recognize satire even when it favors your own
> attitude!
> Looks like Osprey hit the nail on the head when he called you "Chief
> Idiot."
>>I spent six and a half years out
>> of my first seven and a half in a north Tulsa neighborhood that had quite
>> a
>> few members of a couple of tribes, and we had no problems. (This was
>> from
>> early 1956 to about six weeks before Christmas in 1962...not very long
>> after
>> the Russian missiles in Cuba international controversy finally was
>> concluded, and we were only about 140 kilometers ENE of Tinker AFB, which
>> was a SAC base.) Some of my classmates when I started school were Osage,
>> a
>> Sac and Fox or two, a few Cherokees, and probably a few more tribes.
>> Enjoy
>> your doomed fantasy, since I got moved to Houston two and a half years
>> later, and I'm used to living in a city and metro that has about every
>> nationality and race on the planet. Thanks for your futile fantasy.
> Thanks for the demonstration of how hypocritical your allies,
> especially Ray Fischer, are. They eat up personal accounts like this
> by YOU, but when I tried to broaden their horizons by mentioning a
> whistling language of the Canary Islanders, I got dumped on by
> Fischer.
> Peter Nyikos
He's just as dumb as Chilton, J and Osprey so don't burst his bubble.
I like
messing with stupid people, it justifies all the things I do to
oppress
Christians, glamorize abortion and spread indecency on the airwaves.
-------------------------------------- end of included post
Peter Nyikos
Spartakus
> Was Spartakus telling everyone a tall tale by saying that you could
> figure out his location within one second of an arc of the earth's
> circumference, both latitude and longitude, just by the information
> in the headers of Spartakus's posts?
No.
Never made that claim. You're either making things up or
hallucinating.
As you once said,
"Got any more diversionary red herrings [do you
realize I am being redundant here?] to entertain
us with?"
-- Message-ID: <a127e556-1988-4ef0-91f6-
fe9233...@x1g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
pnyikos
> On Nov 4, 7:10 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 06:46:22 -0800 (PST), Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >On Nov 3, 6:45 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> > >> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 20:31:53 -0800, "Mike Painter" <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >pnyikos wrote:
> > >> >> I returned about an hour ago from a Mass celebrating AllSoulsDay,
> > >> >> first reading was from the opening verses of Chapter 3 of the Book of
> > >> >> Wisdom, which the Roman Catholic Church includes in the canon of the
> > >> >> Bible. Most Protestant denominations consider it one of the
> > >> >> Apocrypha, but I think all officially subscribe to the hope expressed
> > >> >> in the opening verses:
>
> > >> >> "Thesoulsof the just are in the hand of God,
> > >> >> and no torment shall touch them. They seemed,
> > >> >> in the view of the foolish, to be dead; and their
> > >> >> passing away was thought to be an affliction and
> > >> >> their going forth to death, utter destruction. But the
> > >> >> are in peace...
> > >> >> ...the LORD shall be their King forever. Those who
> > >> >> trust in him shall understand truth, and the faithful
> > >> >> shall abide with him in love..."
> > >> >> I don't think I could long bear to contemplate the fate of millions of
> > >> >> of viable ones, many of whom are torn limb from limb while still
> > >> >> alive, were it not for the hope (sometimes strong, sometimes almost
> > >> >> vanishingly faint) that this passage is not only true but applies to
> > >> >> these unfortunates as well. For them, and to all the women who are
> > >> >> killed in abortion, and indeed for all the dead, past, present, and
> > >> >> future, I joined in the prayer:
> > >> >even talk about limbo.
> > >> >Until recently all the bad ones went to a hell of fire and brimstone, now
> > >> >they talk about it being absent from God.
> > >> Wrong on both counts, mikey.
> > >Actually, he is 100% correct.
>
> > No, he is wrong,
See my own follow-up to Duke. Neither he nor they are 100% right or
wrong.
> Just like
> the common christer view 50 - 100 years ago was the same as the Hebrew
> Torrah, that souls joined the body at the time of birth.
100% wrong where the Roman Catholic Church is concerned. There was
some dispute about ensoulement in the Middle Ages, but the most common
view among RC theologians is that it happens at conception. Certainly
the official dogma is that it one must err on the side of caution and
behave as though it did happen at conception.
>Since the
> abortion issue,
Abortion was an issue from the earliest days of the Way. Several
Church Fathers wrote about it, saying it is a terrible sin and that
Christians just did not do it.
>christers started saying that the soul joined the body
> at conception. christers have always changed their views to suit
> their politics.
What is YOUR source for this boilerplate propaganda?
I'm surprised, by the way, to see you talk like this. You and Osprey
seemed to be on good terms back in July, and he certainly does not
think like this.
Peter Nyikos
Peter Nyikos
x
> x <x...@y.com> wrote:
>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>> This is where nyikos reallly shows his credentials as an immoral
>>> hypocrite whose only agenda is to subjugate women.
>>>
>>> pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 3, 1:11 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 2, 9:53 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I don't think I could long bear to contemplate the fate of millions of
>>>>>>>> unborn children who are aborted each year, including tens of thousands
>>>>>>> Sure you can, bigot. You already do.
>>>> Exactly, and in the words Ray deleted, I explained EXACTLY the reasons
>>>> why I *can* bear it,
>>> Because you're a coldhearted hypocrite whose real agenda is the
>>> subjugation of women.
>> Not if they are in utero.
>
> 1) That's a tacit admission that you care only about fetuses.
Liar
> 2) There are no women in utero - never have been.
Half the fetuses are female. Let's not split hairs.
>
>>>> namely the hope I have that death isn't the end
>>>> of everything.
>>> Then why are you anti-abortion?
>>>
>>> You can't even keep your story straight.
>>>
>>>>>>> While you sit on yooiur lying,
>>>>>>> hypocritical ass you are letting children die of hunger at the rate of
>>>>>>> a couple every minute. While you sit in your comfortable home and
>>>>>>> spend money to show the world how disgustingly immoral you are,
>>>>>> As I've said several times, at least once in reply to you, I spend
>>>>>> about $10 per year on anti-abortion causes and over $1000 per year on
>>>>>> charity
>>>> In contrast, Ray gave NO figures below on how much he contributes.
>>> Notice that fauxNy thinks it's fine for HIM to let people die so long
>>> as he makes his token payment.
>> I noticed no such thing
>
> That's because you're an insane cultist.
>
You're the insane cultist.
>>>>> I'll tell you the same thing you tell pregnant women:
>>>> By YOUR hate-crazed standards,
>>> YOU are the lying hypocrite. Not me.
>>>
>>>>> DO MORE! DIE if necessary in order to save lives, you stinking
>>>>> hypocrite.
>>>> Get a life,
>>> YOU are the perverted conbtrolk freak sticking your nose into people's
>>> private affairs. Not me.
>> Stop trying to control anti-abortionists.
>
> Stop being a terrorist.
Stop being ridiculous.
pnyikos
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 10:44:55 -0800 (PST), panamfl...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >On Nov 4, 1:17 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
> >Okay, let's talk "reason". You compose an idiotic superstitous screed,
> >and then add alt.atheism to the list of groups you send it to. Now you
> >whine and complain when someone free from your nonsense treats your
> >post the way it *should* be in this group.
>
> >superstion, or the tribal chanting & shamanistic garbage surrounding
> >`fellow traveler' here? And if the intent of your little post was to
> >impress people with your insipid fairy tales, then it was a major
> >failure.
>
> >Ray's replies are an adequate response to either one of these
> >scenarios. In fact, I admire his restraint. Personally, I would have
> >told you to take your moronic dead-jew-on-a-stick and shove him up
> >your ass.
>
> You don't understand - giving these bigoted, in-your-face, idiots
> the response their aggressive stupidity deserves, is unprovoked
> "hatred and dishonesty" in their sociopathic wordl view.
Hey, listen, if you don't like talking about the things I wrote about,
I can understand that. When I lost my faith, aged 23, in the
caricature of what I believe the Catholic Church to represent, I would
have been very impatient with almost anyone exhibiting even that much
hope. I was mostlly interested in talking about what I call the
Achilles' Heel of Christianity, the belief that Hell is a place of
everlasting torment where many unfortunate souls go.
My current view of Hell is very different from that, and I think most
sophisticated Christians either share it or disbelieve in Hell
altogether. The latter view, however, is so much at odds with the New
Testament that I don't think it is compatible with a long-term hope in
the existence of heaven.
> They don't understand the difference between their action and a
> reaction which wouldn't even have happened.
> Nor do they understand that unlike them we are not commanded to turn
> the other cheek.
I saw the film, "Demetrius and the Gladiators" when still a teenager,
and if I ever did NOT understand that, I have understood it ever
since.
On the other hand, it was only after I turned 30 that I came to find
out what "turning the other cheek" really means.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On Nov 4, 1:44 pm, panamfl...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Nov 4, 1:17 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > snip
>
> > Okay, let's talk "reason".
>
Say...are you the same Jimbo who had a nice online chat with Osprey
this summer? I even sent you an e-mail to someone calling himself
Jimbo, but never got a reply.
Does your laughing smiley mean that you mean what you say, and are
laughing at me?
If so, I wouldn't in my wildest dreams have imagined that that Jimbo
would subscribe to such an infantile stereotype of someone about whom
he knew next to nothing.
If not, please disregard that last sentence and explain what the
smiley signifies.
Peter Nyikos
Mark Sebree
> On 04 Nov 2009 17:45:18 GMT, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>On 04 Nov 2009 02:38:58 GMT, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
>
> >>>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 05:46:09 -0600, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 04:17:24 -0500, Attila <<procho...@here.now> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>I don't think I could long bear to contemplate the fate of millions of
> >>>>>>unborn children
>
> >>>>>Which do not exist.
>
> >>>> Ah, the challenge to the mentally ill.
>
> >>>You should know, having the requisite disability.
>
> >>And, I'm still your intellectual superior,
>
> >Impossible. You have no intellect.
>
> Then why is it so easy for me to put you down?
Because putdowns are simple and any idiot can do them, especially when
the supposed putdown is a lie from the start. They also serve as a
distraction from the fact that you have nothing to support your
claims, not that the distraction actually works.
If you want to be perceived as intelligent, you have to present
yourself as being intelligent. That means refraining from constant
and gratuitous insults, especially when that is the only thing in your
post. It means actually trying to support your claims in an
intelligent, logical, and reasoned manner. It means supporting your
claims with independent and objective sources. It means taking the
time to explain your claims fully and completely, which means more
than one sentence statements. It means not expecting people to accept
your claims just because you make them, nor does it mean expecting
that others will accept your opinions just because you subscribe them
to your deity.
Currently, you are not perceived as being very intelligent because you
do not present yourself as being intelligent. That is why nobody
believes your claims that you are the intellectual superior of anyone.
Mark Sebree
>
> Duke
Jimbo
No, I was 100% correct.
pnyikos
> On Nov 5, 7:44 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 04 Nov 2009 17:45:18 GMT, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
> > >duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> > >>On 04 Nov 2009 02:38:58 GMT, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
>
> > >>>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 05:46:09 -0600, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> > >>>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 04:17:24 -0500, Attila <<procho...@here.now> wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>I don't think I could long bear to contemplate the fate of millions of
> > >>>>>>unborn children
>
> > >>>>>Which do not exist.
>
> > >>>> Ah, the challenge to the mentally ill.
>
> > >>>You should know, having the requisite disability.
>
> > >>And, I'm still your intellectual superior,
>
> > >Impossible. You have no intellect.
>
> > Then why is it so easy for me to put you down?
>
> Because putdowns are simple and any idiot can do them, especially when
> the supposed putdown is a lie from the start.
Now, why can't more people say such things to Ray Fischer and Patrick
Humphrey and James Keegan? They are at least as guilty of this
behavior as Duke.
> They also serve as a
> distraction from the fact that you have nothing to support your
> claims, not that the distraction actually works.
It seems to work for Fischer and Humphrey and Keeagn, because they are
backed up by other members of their cozy clique (including "Spartakus"
that dominates talk.abortion by sheer weight of numbers.
> If you want to be perceived as intelligent, you have to present
> yourself as being intelligent.
Ah,there's the ticket: none of the three I mention gives a fig about
being perceived as intelligent by objective observers, although
they'll swap gossippy messages putting others down to make it look
like they think they are intelligent.
> That means refraining from constant
> and gratuitous insults, especially when that is the only thing in your
> post. It means actually trying to support your claims in an
> intelligent, logical, and reasoned manner.
The trio I've named knows these things, but they think they have a
better thing going.
> It means supporting your
> claims with independent and objective sources. It means taking the
> time to explain your claims fully and completely, which means more
> than one sentence statements. It means not expecting people to accept
> your claims just because you make them, nor does it mean expecting
> that others will accept your opinions just because you subscribe them
> to your deity.
For "deity" substitute "other members of the cozy clique" where the
above three are concerned.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
Repeating unsupported claims is not the same as supporting them. Just
ask Mark Sebree. [I may have misspelled his name in my reply to
Keegan, and if so I apologize.]
The Torah never comes out and says what you say it does, it says life
is in the blood, and it also talks about the children in Rebekah's
womb, Esau and Jacob, struggling with each other.
I do believe that you got confused and took the account of Adam's
creation to be definitive in respect of first breath for all humans,
but then why don't you say that the Torah says all children are molded
from the dust of the earth?
As for MY claim, I can point to encyclicals and other documents that
confirm what I wrote. Do you have any sources to support your claim
besides this one passage from Genesis 2?
Peter Nyikos
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> x <x...@y.com> wrote:
>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>> This is where nyikos reallly shows his credentials as an immoral
>>>> hypocrite whose only agenda is to subjugate women.
>>>>
>>>> pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 3, 1:11 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Nov 2, 9:53 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I don't think I could long bear to contemplate the fate of millions of
>>>>>>>>> unborn children who are aborted each year, including tens of thousands
>>>>>>>> Sure you can, bigot. You already do.
>>>>> Exactly, and in the words Ray deleted, I explained EXACTLY the reasons
>>>>> why I *can* bear it,
>>>> Because you're a coldhearted hypocrite whose real agenda is the
>>>> subjugation of women.
>>> Not if they are in utero.
>>
>> 1) That's a tacit admission that you care only about fetuses.
>
>Liar
You just stated that you don't want to subjugate "women" in the uterus.
>> 2) There are no women in utero - never have been.
>
>Half the fetuses are female.
"Female" is not "woman", pro-liar idiot.
>>>> Notice that fauxNy thinks it's fine for HIM to let people die so long
>>>> as he makes his token payment.
>>> I noticed no such thing
>>
>> That's because you're an insane cultist.
>
>You're the insane cultist.
"I know you are but what am I?"
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>There are lots of versions of atheism, some of them deserving of great
>respect . [Even Chesterton agreed in the midst of a brilliant essay
>explaining why he was a Christian.] But Ray's version is both
>mindless and heartless.
YOU are mindless and heartless.
>> Your deepening senility (assuming it's actually you) has pretty much
>> deprived you of a grasp of atheism, Phony.
>
>On the contrary, it is you whose grasp of atheism is slipping away,
"I know you are but what am I?"
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>100% wrong where the Roman Catholic Church is concerned. There was
>some dispute about ensoulement in the Middle Ages, but the most common
>view among RC theologians is that it happens at conception.
Patent bullshit.
> Certainly
>the official dogma is that it one must err on the side of caution and
>behave as though it did happen at conception.
Because the RCC has no regard for people or for liberty.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Nov 5, 8:00�pm, Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 5, 4:18�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> > > �Just like
>> > > the common christer view 50 - 100 years ago was the same as the Hebrew
>> > > Torrah, that souls joined the body at the time of birth.
>>
>> > 100% wrong where the Roman Catholic Church is concerned. �
>>
>> No, I was 100% correct.
>
>Repeating unsupported claims is not the same as supporting them.
Then we shall be seeing you support your claims about ensoulment and
the RCC's position?
[...]
>As for MY claim, I can point to encyclicals and other documents that
>confirm what I wrote.
And yet you don't.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>> > Then why is it so easy for me to put you down?
>>
>> Because putdowns are simple and any idiot can do them, especially when
>> the supposed putdown is a lie from the start.
>
>Now, why can't more people say such things to Ray Fischer and Patrick
>Humphrey and James Keegan? They are at least as guilty of this
>behavior as Duke.
Smirk. fauxNy resorts to a put down, doubtless because has nothing
better.
>> �They also serve as a
>> distraction from the fact that you have nothing to support your
>> claims, not that the distraction actually works.
>
>It seems to work for Fischer and Humphrey and Keeagn,
Whine, whine, whine.
The difference between me and puke is that I CAN use logic and reason
to justofy my position. You can't.
>, because they are
>backed up by other members of their cozy clique (including "Spartakus"
The usual conspiracy idiocy.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Nov 3, 9:41 pm, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:15:33 -0500, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 18:41:43 -0800 (PST), pnyikos
>> ><nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>I returned about an hour ago from a Mass celebrating AllSoulsDay
>>
>> > And felt the need to share this on alt.atheism why?
>>
>> Because from all appearances,
>
>Hogwash.
>
>>it's a fake Peter Nyikos (the real one was and
>> still might be faculty at The USC
>
>What do you, a stalker from way back, mean by saying "might"?
Why do you, a pedophile supporter, not understand simple sentences?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
The Chief Instigator
> On 04 Nov 2009 22:09:38 GMT, The Chief Instigator <pat...@io.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 06:12:13 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> On 04 Nov 2009 02:38:58 GMT, The Chief Instigator <pat...@io.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 05:46:09 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 04:17:24 -0500, Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>I don't think I could long bear to contemplate the fate of millions of
>>>>>>>unborn children
>>>>>
>>>>>>Which do not exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, the challenge to the mentally ill.
>>>>
>>>>You should know, having the requisite disability.
>>>
>>> And, I'm still your intellectual superior, west loop.
>>
>>Just more Dook self-worship. Stick the Vatican where the moon don't shine,
>>Pope and all. (That's my opinion.)
>
> Nobody cares what your opinion is, west loop.
...and you're goddamned certified as nobody, Dumbass Dook (IMO, as always).
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Houston 4, Manitoba 1 (November 5)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, November 7 vs. San Antonio, 7:35
The Chief Instigator
Phony's one singularly sorry SOB, in my book.
--
panam...@hotmail.com
> On Nov 4, 2:21 pm, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 10:44:55 -0800 (PST), panamfl...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >On Nov 4, 1:17 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > >snip
>
> > >Okay, let's talk "reason". You compose an idiotic superstitous screed,
> > >and then add alt.atheism to the list of groups you send it to. Now you
> > >whine and complain when someone free from your nonsense treats your
> > >post the way it *should* be in this group.
>
> > >Why did you send it to us in the first place? We don't care about your
> > >superstion, or the tribal chanting & shamanistic garbage surrounding
> > >them. What are you trying to achieve? Did you think you would find a
> > >`fellow traveler' here? And if the intent of your little post was to
> > >impress people with your insipid fairy tales, then it was a major
> > >failure.
>
> > >Ray's replies are an adequate response to either one of these
> > >scenarios. In fact, I admire his restraint. Personally, I would have
> > >told you to take your moronic dead-jew-on-a-stick and shove him up
> > >your ass.
>
> > You don't understand - giving these bigoted, in-your-face, idiots
> > the response their aggressive stupidity deserves, is unprovoked
> > "hatred and dishonesty" in their sociopathic wordl view.
>
> Hey, listen, if you don't like talking about the things I wrote about,
> I can understand that.
How "Christian" of you. Now, please explain your inability to
understand that you've made your *very* silly decision to post your
nonsense into a newsgroup in which even the likes of *you* (based upon
your previous history here in alt.atheism) should have known was not
an appropriate place for it.
> When I lost my faith, aged 23, in the
> caricature of what I believe the Catholic Church to represent, I would
> have been very impatient with almost anyone exhibiting even that much
> hope. I was mostlly interested in talking about what I call the
> Achilles' Heel of Christianity, the belief that Hell is a place of
> everlasting torment where many unfortunate souls go.
Oh, please! Spare us your pathetic martyr complex. Many atheists were
fed the insipid superstions of our parents, and have found the
strength to overcome them. Your admission that you have "issues" with
the more irrational, immoral, and violent parts of your ridiculous
superstition is not a point of interest for those of us that once
faced the same concerns-and actually *overcame* them. When you say
things like this, you only show your cowardice when confronted with
the overall idiocy of such an ancient myth.
> My current view of Hell is very different from that, and I think most
> sophisticated Christians either share it or disbelieve in Hell
> altogether.
No small wonder. I would laugh at the mental gymnastics you who still
"believe" in that garbage do...except for the fact that I remember my
own panic and pain when confronting the same immorality. I'd pity you,
if you were posting your crap in alt.salad.bar.christians, instead of
into a place where most of the participants have outgrown that crap.
> The latter view, however, is so much at odds with the New
> Testament that I don't think it is compatible with a long-term hope in
> the existence of heaven.
Breaking News! The "New Testament" is fiction! A swirling collection
of Bronze Age stories written by ancient, superstitious men. Collected
and edited by the superstious men of the early Middle Ages.
http://tinyurl.com/2kg43d
http://tinyurl.com/3ay5hm
http://tinyurl.com/2wskdr
http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html
http://www.pocm.info/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/
http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/
Do you wish to join them, or do you wish to rise above them? Your
answer will reveal much about your nature as a human being.
> > They don't understand the difference between their action and a
> > reaction which wouldn't even have happened.
> > Nor do they understand that unlike them we are not commanded to turn
> > the other cheek.
>
> I saw the film, "Demetrius and the Gladiators" when still a teenager,
> and if I ever did NOT understand that, I have understood it ever
> since.
Did you *really* just say, "..I saw it in a movie!.."? Now I know
you're not serious about exploring your doubts about your childhood
programming. You seem to be clinging to your own personal
*interpretation* of Christianity, hoping beyond hope that your
personal rationalization of that pathetic old fairy tale will somehow
calm your mind.
Good luck, sucker.
> On the other hand, it was only after I turned 30 that I came to find
> out what "turning the other cheek" really means.
That's actually quite common with thiests, especially with slaves of
the three versions of Abrahamic mythology. Considering that you had
such an ancient & immoral mythology shoved down your throat when you
were a child, it's not uncommon behavior. Hell, I know adults that
*still* don't understand something as simple as "live, and let live".
Oddly enough, most of them are Christians.
And I'll suggest that if you would have had that crisis of conscience
as a teenager-if you'd been enough of a human to confront your
neurosis that long ago. And by the time you were 30, it would have no
longer been a problem, but a distant memory.
Your own doubts about your pathetic nonsense is *your* problem, not
ours. And if you'd been intelligent enough to compare them with other
people *sharing* your doubts, rather than with people who've discarded
them, you wouldn't have received the ridicule you so well deserve.
To those of us who have faced and defeated our fear, your whining
sounds like the words of a child who's just discovered Mom & Dad
assembling their toys on Christmas morning. I'll never understand how
children are able to discard the myth of "Santa", but a full-grown
adult still can't discard the myth of "god".
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
Jimbo
It's 100% supported.
duke
>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>On 04 Nov 2009 17:45:18 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>On 04 Nov 2009 02:38:58 GMT, The Chief Instigator <pat...@io.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 05:46:09 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 04:17:24 -0500, Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I don't think I could long bear to contemplate the fate of millions of
>>>>>>>>unborn children
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Which do not exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ah, the challenge to the mentally ill.
>>>>>
>>>>>You should know, having the requisite disability.
>>>>
>>>>And, I'm still your intellectual superior,
>>>
>>>Impossible. You have no intellect.
>>
>>Then why is it so easy for me to put you down?
>
>You only believe that because you're insane.
No, I fully understand that you don't know what you're talking about.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
wrote:
>On Nov 5, 7:44�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On 04 Nov 2009 17:45:18 GMT, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >duke �<duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >>On 04 Nov 2009 02:38:58 GMT, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 05:46:09 -0600, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >>>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 04:17:24 -0500, Attila <<procho...@here.now> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>I don't think I could long bear to contemplate the fate of millions of
>> >>>>>>unborn children
>>
>> >>>>>Which do not exist.
>>
>> >>>> Ah, the challenge to the mentally ill.
>>
>> >>>You should know, having the requisite disability.
>>
>> >>And, I'm still your intellectual superior,
>>
>> >Impossible. �You have no intellect.
>>
>> Then why is it so easy for me to put you down?
>
>
>Because putdowns are simple and any idiot can do them
There you go, sebree.
Mark Sebree
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 14:28:31 -0800 (PST), Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 5, 7:44 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On 04 Nov 2009 17:45:18 GMT, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
> >> >duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >>On 04 Nov 2009 02:38:58 GMT, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 05:46:09 -0600, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >>>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 04:17:24 -0500, Attila <<procho...@here.now> wrote:
>
> >> >>>>>>I don't think I could long bear to contemplate the fate of millions of
> >> >>>>>>unborn children
>
> >> >>>>>Which do not exist.
>
> >> >>>> Ah, the challenge to the mentally ill.
>
> >> >>>You should know, having the requisite disability.
>
> >> >>And, I'm still your intellectual superior,
>
> >> >Impossible. You have no intellect.
>
> >> Then why is it so easy for me to put you down?
>
> > the supposed putdown is a lie from the start. They also serve as a
> > distraction from the fact that you have nothing to support your
> > claims, not that the distraction actually works.
> >
> > If you want to be perceived as intelligent, you have to present
> > yourself as being intelligent. That means refraining from constant
> > and gratuitous insults, especially when that is the only thing in your
> > post. It means actually trying to support your claims in an
> > intelligent, logical, and reasoned manner. It means supporting your
> > claims with independent and objective sources. It means taking the
> > time to explain your claims fully and completely, which means more
> > than one sentence statements. It means not expecting people to accept
> > your claims just because you make them, nor does it mean expecting
> > that others will accept your opinions just because you subscribe them
> > to your deity.
> >
> > Currently, you are not perceived as being very intelligent because you
> > do not present yourself as being intelligent. That is why nobody
> > believes your claims that you are the intellectual superior of anyone.
>
Well, it does answer your question and explain most of your posts
quite well. Since all you can do is put other people down, you do not
present yourself as being intellectually superior to anyone, and you
are doing what any idiot can do.
Mark Sebree
>
> Duke
duke
wrote:
>Well, it does answer your question and explain most of your posts
>quite well. Since all you can do is put other people down, you do not
>present yourself as being intellectually superior to anyone, and you
>are doing what any idiot can do.
People who make asses of themselves deserve to be corrected. I correct you a
lot.
Ray Fischer
>On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 12:56:39 -0800 (PST), Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Well, it does answer your question and explain most of your posts
>>quite well. Since all you can do is put other people down, you do not
>>present yourself as being intellectually superior to anyone, and you
>>are doing what any idiot can do.
>
>People who make asses of themselves deserve to be corrected.
You're an anti-Jesus ass. Your cult is leading you astray.
Consider yourself corrected.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Mark Sebree
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 12:56:39 -0800 (PST), Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net>
> wrote:
>
> >quite well. Since all you can do is put other people down, you do not
> >present yourself as being intellectually superior to anyone, and you
> >are doing what any idiot can do.
>
> People who make asses of themselves deserve to be corrected.
That is why I correct you in so many of my posts. You make an ass of
yourself and you present lies and misinformation. Therefore I correct
you and explain why your claim is a lie and what the facts are. I
also point out your logical fallacies and explain those to you as
well.
> I correct you a lot.
No, you do not. You insult me a lot and lie about me a lot, but you
have failed to correct me very many times at all. You consistently
failed to show show where I am wrong in what I say, or where I am
misinformed. You cannot present any objective information to support
your claims, and you think that everyone is bound by your beliefs even
when nobody is and you have been told this and had it explained to
you.
Mark Sebree
>
> Duke
duke
Not by you, that's for sure.
duke
wrote:
>>� I correct you a lot.
>No, you do not.
Yep, in EVERY post.
Mark Sebree
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 12:18:14 -0800 (PST), Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > have failed to correct me very many times at all. You consistently
> > failed to show show where I am wrong in what I say, or where I am
> > misinformed. You cannot present any objective information to support
> > your claims, and you think that everyone is bound by your beliefs even
> > when nobody is and you have been told this and had it explained to
> > you.
Actually, you lie in EVERY post. You are corrected in everyone else's
posts to you. Just as I said in my last post. Lying about me and
insulting me is not "correcting me". It is a diversion to avoid
supporting your claims and to avoid posting intelligent responses.
And since you make an ass of yourself so consistently, by your own
words you deserve to be corrected.
Mark Sebree
>
> Duke
Don Martin
<seb...@infionline.net> wrote to Douchebag:
>> > your claims, and you think that everyone is bound by your beliefs even
>> > when nobody is and you have been told this and had it explained to
>> > you.
>
>Actually, you lie in EVERY post. You are corrected in everyone else's
>posts to you.
No lack of consistency on either side, then.
aa #2278 If you can't be a dirty old man, what is the point of being an old man?
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
Ray Fischer
>On 07 Nov 2009 18:16:45 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 12:56:39 -0800 (PST), Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Well, it does answer your question and explain most of your posts
>>>>quite well. Since all you can do is put other people down, you do not
>>>>present yourself as being intellectually superior to anyone, and you
>>>>are doing what any idiot can do.
>>>
>>>People who make asses of themselves deserve to be corrected.
>
>>You're an anti-Jesus ass. Your cult is leading you astray.
>>Consider yourself corrected.
>
>Not by you, that's for sure.
Pride is the worst of the seven deadly sins. You're so corrupted yb
pride that you believe you're the equal of God,
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
duke
>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>On 07 Nov 2009 18:16:45 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 12:56:39 -0800 (PST), Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Well, it does answer your question and explain most of your posts
>>>>>quite well. Since all you can do is put other people down, you do not
>>>>>present yourself as being intellectually superior to anyone, and you
>>>>>are doing what any idiot can do.
>>>>
>>>>People who make asses of themselves deserve to be corrected.
>>
>>>You're an anti-Jesus ass. Your cult is leading you astray.
>>>Consider yourself corrected.
>>
>>Not by you, that's for sure.
>
>Pride is the worst of the seven deadly sins. You're so corrupted yb
>pride that you believe you're the equal of God,
I've never been a corrupted yb [sic], and I definitely am not the equal of God
and never, ever gave that impression.
duke
wrote:
>Actually, you lie in EVERY post.
Name one (1) time.
Ray Fischer
>On 08 Nov 2009 19:35:01 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>On 07 Nov 2009 18:16:45 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>
>>>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 12:56:39 -0800 (PST), Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Well, it does answer your question and explain most of your posts
>>>>>>quite well. Since all you can do is put other people down, you do not
>>>>>>present yourself as being intellectually superior to anyone, and you
>>>>>>are doing what any idiot can do.
>>>>>
>>>>>People who make asses of themselves deserve to be corrected.
>>>
>>>>You're an anti-Jesus ass. Your cult is leading you astray.
>>>>Consider yourself corrected.
>>>
>>>Not by you, that's for sure.
>>
>>Pride is the worst of the seven deadly sins. You're so corrupted yb
>>pride that you believe you're the equal of God,
>
>I've never been a corrupted
You ARE corrupt, puke.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Mark Sebree
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 08:42:39 -0800 (PST), Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Actually, you lie in EVERY post. You are corrected in everyone else's
> > posts to you. Just as I said in my last post. Lying about me and
> > insulting me is not "correcting me". It is a diversion to avoid
> > supporting your claims and to avoid posting intelligent responses.
> > And since you make an ass of yourself so consistently, by your own
> > words you deserve to be corrected.
> >
>
You lied when you claimed that you correct me a lot, and that lie is
in this thread. It is a lie because you do not correct me, you insult
me and lie about me to avoid support your claims.
Here is a list of other lies that you commonly make, reprinted from
another post in this thread.
Homosexuals are demanding "special rights" when all they are doing is
demanding the same rights that heterosexual take for granted.
That only your deity exist when it is a fact that there are many
thousands of deities which have just as much evidence of existing as
yours does, i.e. none.
By implication that everyone is bound by your beliefs and your
interpretation of your mythology when neither is true.
That you are the intellectual superior of anyone.
That you have ever objectively supported your claims, especially the
one where you claim that your deity was responsible for the formation
of the universe.
Your signature is a lie since there is no such thing as a "perfect
form a prayer" since every religion and pretty much every sect and
denomination has different ideas about how to pray.
Christians who support same sex marriage and/or are pro-choice are
"not true Christians".
When challenged to support your claims, you cannot do so. You try
evasions and insults and claiming that it is because of your personal
beliefs that your opinions should be taken and acted on to avoid
actually objective;y supporting your claims.
Mark Sebree
>
> Duke
The Chief Instigator
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 12:18:14 -0800 (PST), Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>No, you do not.
>
> Yep, in EVERY post.
Lay off the drugs, Dork.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Houston 5, San Antonio 2 (November 7)
NEXT GAME: Friday, November 13 at Lake Erie, 6:35
duke
You just hate hearing what your eternal future may be like, fishboy.
Jimbo
> On 08 Nov 2009 20:11:29 GMT, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>On 08 Nov 2009 19:35:01 GMT, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
> >>>duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>>>On 07 Nov 2009 18:16:45 GMT, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
> >>>>>duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 12:56:39 -0800 (PST), Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net>
> >>>>>>wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>Well, it does answer your question and explain most of your posts
> >>>>>>>quite well. Since all you can do is put other people down, you do not
> >>>>>>>present yourself as being intellectually superior to anyone, and you
> >>>>>>>are doing what any idiot can do.
>
> >>>>>>People who make asses of themselves deserve to be corrected.
>
> >>>>>You're an anti-Jesus ass. Your cult is leading you astray.
> >>>>>Consider yourself corrected.
>
> >>>>Not by you, that's for sure.
>
> >>>Pride is the worst of the seven deadly sins. You're so corrupted yb
> >>>pride that you believe you're the equal of God,
>
> >>I've never been a corrupted
>
> >You ARE corrupt, puke.
>
> You just hate hearing what your eternal future may be like, fishboy.
>
"May be like?" Is that doubt creeping into your verbiage? Hmmm...
Seems that your "faith" is a bit lacking, lying pedophile earl.
In point of fact, you have yet to prove that this "after life" exists.
duke
wrote:
>> > Actually, you lie in EVERY post.
>> Name one (1) time.
>You lied when you claimed that you correct me a lot, and that lie is
>in this thread.
That you stand corrected 100% of the time is reflected in this very thread.
>Here is a list of other lies that you commonly make, reprinted from
>another post in this thread.
>Homosexuals are demanding "special rights" when all they are doing is
>demanding the same rights that heterosexual take for granted.
No lie. That's exactly what they're doing.
>That only your deity exist when it is a fact that there are many
>thousands of deities which have just as much evidence of existing as
>yours does, i.e. none.
No lie. Only one.
>By implication that everyone is bound by your beliefs and your
>interpretation of your mythology when neither is true.
God's word, not mine.
>That you are the intellectual superior of anyone.
Of you, that's a guarantee.
>That you have ever objectively supported your claims, especially the
>one where you claim that your deity was responsible for the formation
>of the universe.
Physics says that.
>Your signature is a lie since there is no such thing as a "perfect
>form a prayer" since every religion and pretty much every sect and
>denomination has different ideas about how to pray.
Poor words by an atheist wannabe boy.
>Christians who support same sex marriage and/or are pro-choice are
>"not true Christians".
I don't use the term "true Christian".
>When challenged to support your claims, you cannot do so.
Just because you can't comprehend support for my words doesn't mean I don't
provide any.
duke
>On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 08:00:31 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 12:18:14 -0800 (PST), Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>? I correct you a lot.
>>
>>>No, you do not.
>>
>> Yep, in EVERY post.
>
>Lay off the drugs, Dork.
No, really, west loop, sebree is an easy mark to correct every day.
Mark Sebree
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 12:41:15 -0800 (PST), Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net>
> wrote:
>
> > You lied when you claimed that you correct me a lot, and that lie is
> > me and lie about me to avoid support your claims.
>
And that is a lie since you have failed to correct me using objective
facts anywhere in this thread. All you can do is insult people and
lie to avoid supporting your biased and hateful opinions.
>
> >Here is a list of other lies that you commonly make, reprinted from
> >another post in this thread.
> >Homosexuals are demanding "special rights" when all they are doing is
> >demanding the same rights that heterosexual take for granted.
>
> No lie.
Yes, it is.
> That's exactly what they're doing.
Then why can't you name the supposed special right that they are
asking for, and show why and how heterosexuals would be legally
excluded from exercising that supposed right? All you have been able
to do is prove that they don't have the same rights, which has been my
point all along, a point that I have been able to support using logic,
reason, and facts.
>
> >That only your deity exist when it is a fact that there are many
> >thousands of deities which have just as much evidence of existing as
> >yours does, i.e. none.
>
> No lie.
That claim is a lie.
> Only one.
Nope. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of deities which are
currently being worshipped that have exactly the same amount of
objective evidence to support their existence as yours has, i.e. none.
>
> >By implication that everyone is bound by your beliefs and your
> >interpretation of your mythology when neither is true.
>
> God's word, not mine.
Your word since you have failed to show that your deity even exists.
And your claim proves my point, that you think that everyone is bound
by your interpretation of your mythology. Nobody is bound by the
imaginings of people that want to brainwash them and oppress them as
you want to.
>
> >That you are the intellectual superior of anyone.
>
> Of you, that's a guarantee.
No, that is a lie since you have never shown that you are
intellectually superior to anyone.
>
> >That you have ever objectively supported your claims, especially the
> >one where you claim that your deity was responsible for the formation
> >of the universe.
>
> Physics says that.
Nope. Nothing in physics references any supernatural being as
actually existing. Certainly nothing in the field of cosmology claims
that any supernatural being had anything to do with the formation of
the universe.
>
> >Your signature is a lie since there is no such thing as a "perfect
> >form a prayer" since every religion and pretty much every sect and
> >denomination has different ideas about how to pray.
>
> Poor words by an atheist wannabe boy.
Again with the insults. My statement is a fact since your "form of
prayer" can easily and often is counter to the forms of prayer and
ceremony prescribed by other denominations and belief systems.
>
> >Christians who support same sex marriage and/or are pro-choice are
> >"not true Christians".
>
> I don't use the term "true Christian".
If not, then it is certainly implied in your claims. And that
implication was in your statements.
When I showed you that Christian denominations support same sex
marriage and will perform same sex marriages, which shows that your
deity does indeed bless those marriages, and that some Christian
denominations support the pro-choice position, you started claiming
that they were "outlaw churches", even though your could not show that
they were doing anything that was actually illegal. In fact, on of
the denominations mentioned was Anglican (some churches), the third
largest Christian denomination in the world. Your repeated and
unsupported claim that they were "outlaw churches" is effectively the
same as the "no true Christian" statement, which is a reference to the
"no True Scotsman" fallacy which you were using in denying the facts.
This thread also shows where you claimed that no Christian church
would perform a same sex marriage, by the way, which you went on to
show that what you mean was "no true Christian Church" as defined by
your personal opinion, something which is no valid when talking about
any church that you do not personally control.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.abortion/msg/981fbf239ba20092
>
> > When challenged to support your claims, you cannot do so. You try
> > evasions and insults and claiming that it is because of your personal
> > beliefs that your opinions should be taken and acted on to avoid
> > actually objectively supporting your claims.
>
> Just because you can't comprehend support for my words doesn't mean I don't
> provide any.
Actually, I comprehend them extremely well, and I point out the flaws
and fallacies without any problem. Those flaws and fallacies
effectively invalidate your claims unless and until you can address
them, something that you cannot do. That is why you have been told
time and again that you have not supported your claims, because your
claims have fallen apart like a sand castle in a hurricane.
Your so-called "support" is nothing more than your subjective,
unsupported opinions, and that is why they do not actually support
your claims since what you need to provide is objective, verifiable
facts, evidence, proof, logic, and reasoning.
Mark Sebree
>
> Duke
The Chief Instigator
> On 09 Nov 2009 01:34:22 GMT, The Chief Instigator <pat...@io.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 08:00:31 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 12:18:14 -0800 (PST), Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>? I correct you a lot.
>>>
>>>>No, you do not.
>>>
>>> Yep, in EVERY post.
>>
>>Lay off the drugs, Dork.
>
> No, really, west loop, sebree is an easy mark to correct every day.
...in your self-worshiping fantasy, at least.
Jimbo
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 05:02:07 -0800 (PST), Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com>
> in alt.abortion with message-id
> <320141d3-e0ac-405d-a671-fb248a246...@d5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
>
Quite true.
Ray Fischer
>On 08 Nov 2009 20:11:29 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>On 08 Nov 2009 19:35:01 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>
>>>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>On 07 Nov 2009 18:16:45 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 12:56:39 -0800 (PST), Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Well, it does answer your question and explain most of your posts
>>>>>>>>quite well. Since all you can do is put other people down, you do not
>>>>>>>>present yourself as being intellectually superior to anyone, and you
>>>>>>>>are doing what any idiot can do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>People who make asses of themselves deserve to be corrected.
>>>>>
>>>>>>You're an anti-Jesus ass. Your cult is leading you astray.
>>>>>>Consider yourself corrected.
>>>>>
>>>>>Not by you, that's for sure.
>>>>
>>>>Pride is the worst of the seven deadly sins. You're so corrupted yb
>>>>pride that you believe you're the equal of God,
>>>
>>>I've never been a corrupted
>>
>>You ARE corrupt, puke.
>
>You just hate hearing what your eternal future may be like, fishboy.
But you have no idea. You are corrupt, and your lies about God and
Jesus are proof that your cult has corrupted you.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
duke
Nope. I'm giving you some credit for maybe coming to your senses and making
your peace with God. Only God knows, already, if you will or not. I myself do
not have such information, but I'm pulling for you to change.
>In point of fact, you have yet to prove that this "after life" exists.
Not my responsibility. But the likelihood is guaranteed.
duke
>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>On 08 Nov 2009 20:11:29 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>On 08 Nov 2009 19:35:01 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>On 07 Nov 2009 18:16:45 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 12:56:39 -0800 (PST), Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net>
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Well, it does answer your question and explain most of your posts
>>>>>>>>>quite well. Since all you can do is put other people down, you do not
>>>>>>>>>present yourself as being intellectually superior to anyone, and you
>>>>>>>>>are doing what any idiot can do.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>People who make asses of themselves deserve to be corrected.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You're an anti-Jesus ass. Your cult is leading you astray.
>>>>>>>Consider yourself corrected.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not by you, that's for sure.
>>>>>
>>>>>Pride is the worst of the seven deadly sins. You're so corrupted yb
>>>>>pride that you believe you're the equal of God,
>>>>
>>>>I've never been a corrupted
>>>
>>>You ARE corrupt, puke.
>>
>>You just hate hearing what your eternal future may be like, fishboy.
>But you have no idea.
I'm not God, but based on what he said, I'd say your odds are not looking good.
> You are corrupt, and your lies about God and
>Jesus are proof that your cult has corrupted you.
Act wisely.
duke
wrote:
>> That you stand corrected 100% of the time is reflected in this very thread.
>And that is a lie since you have failed to correct me using objective
>facts anywhere in this thread.
You have been corrected 100% of the time.
>> >Homosexuals are demanding "special rights" when all they are doing is
>> >demanding the same rights that heterosexual take for granted.
>> No lie.
>Yes, it is.
>>�That's exactly what they're doing.
>Then why can't you name the supposed special right that they are
>asking for
See, you can't even remember what I told you. Are you drinking this early in
the morning?
duke
>On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 07:05:13 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On 09 Nov 2009 01:34:22 GMT, The Chief Instigator <pat...@io.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 08:00:31 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 12:18:14 -0800 (PST), Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>? I correct you a lot.
>>>>
>>>>>No, you do not.
>>>>
>>>> Yep, in EVERY post.
>>>
>>>Lay off the drugs, Dork.
>>
>> No, really, west loop, sebree is an easy mark to correct every day.
>
>...in your self-worshiping fantasy, at least.
He's really easy.
Jimbo
No duke, you are simply lying. That's what you do best.
> your peace with God.
You have yet to prove that your god thing exists.
Jimbo
> On 10 Nov 2009 03:37:17 GMT, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>On 08 Nov 2009 20:11:29 GMT, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
> >>>>On 08 Nov 2009 19:35:01 GMT, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
> >>>>>duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>On 07 Nov 2009 18:16:45 GMT, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 12:56:39 -0800 (PST), Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net>
> >>>>>>>>wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>Well, it does answer your question and explain most of your posts
> >>>>>>>>>quite well. Since all you can do is put other people down, you do not
> >>>>>>>>>present yourself as being intellectually superior to anyone, and you
> >>>>>>>>>are doing what any idiot can do.
>
> >>>>>>>>People who make asses of themselves deserve to be corrected.
>
> >>>>>>>You're an anti-Jesus ass. Your cult is leading you astray.
> >>>>>>>Consider yourself corrected.
>
> >>>>>>Not by you, that's for sure.
>
> >>>>>Pride is the worst of the seven deadly sins. You're so corrupted yb
> >>>>>pride that you believe you're the equal of God,
>
> >>>>I've never been a corrupted
>
> >>>You ARE corrupt, puke.
>
> >>You just hate hearing what your eternal future may be like, fishboy.
> >But you have no idea.
>
> I'm not God,
You're not even a decent human, lying, pedophile loving earl.
Ray Fischer
Q.E.D.
> but based on what he said, I'd say your odds are not looking good.
Coming from somebody who has rejected Jesus that really isn't worth
anything at all.
>> You are corrupt, and your lies about God and
>>Jesus are proof that your cult has corrupted you.
>
>Act wisely.
Ignoring your insanity and lies is a good start.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net