A terrible, awful tragedy
Buckler
wrote:
>
>On 25-Jul-2001, "*nemo*" <nemo...@yahoo.NOSPMPLS.com> wrote:
>
>> I just heard today of a tragedy in the life of a business associate of
>> mine.
>> His second son, age 18, died due to Hunter Syndrome. His first son died of
>> the same genetic disease a few years ago, and his youngest (and only
>> surviving) son, age 13, has also been diagnosed with this disease.
>
>Natural selection strikes again.
Jabriol, you are one of the most vile, horrible, evil people I have
ever had the displeasure to encounter, either in meatspace or the
'net. Have you no humanity? No empathy? No sense of connection to
other human beings in any meaningful way?
Oh, I understand quite well what you're getting at. You want to point
out the "failings" of evolutionism, through the use of dark sarcasm.
Pointing out every loss of life as merely a result of "natural
selection", then waiting for the fevered response. You want people to
see evolutionism and the concept of natural selection as heartless,
evil things. You know what? You're right.
Natural selection is as heartless as one can get. Like earthquakes,
like hurricanes, like the sea, and like any other force of nature,
natural selection doesn't know who gets in its way, nor does it care.
It doesn't choose, it simply is. We, however, the fruits of its blind
labor, are not subject to the same dictates. We can choose to care. We
can choose to feel. We can choose to comfort, or we can choose to
antagonize. You have chosen the latter, much to your discredit.
If even my most hated debate partner here were to lose a child, I
would immediately shut off debate, and offer my sympathies. Why?
Because I have humanity enough to know when debate stops, and being a
human being begins. You seem to lack that. The things we discuss here
are ephemeral; they might provide passing entertainment, or provide an
outlet for one's passions. When it comes down to it, though, you are
talking to real people, in real places. When one suffers such a loss,
it is a very real loss, not just to them, but to all of us; If one is
consumed by such a horrible event, they are far more concerned with
their own events than our petty ones here. Their major life event robs
us of a relatively minor one. This does not lessen its importance.
Jabriol, your point is well taken, allright? I won't be so foolish as
to ask you to stop delighting in every death you hear of, since that
seems to be a part of your nature. Instead, I would ask that you pray
to your God for more wisdom. I seriously doubt that that wish will be
granted, but given the circumstances, I suppose it's the best chance
that you and we have.
Buckler
Spam block in use. To respond via email, remove the third letter of the alphabet from my username.
Liquid Grace
"Jabriol" <jab...@truthspeaker.net> wrote in message
news:5B_97.67526$Cu6.4...@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
>
> On 25-Jul-2001, "*nemo*" <nemo...@yahoo.NOSPMPLS.com> wrote:
>
> > I just heard today of a tragedy in the life of a business associate of
> > mine.
> > His second son, age 18, died due to Hunter Syndrome. His first son died
of
> > the same genetic disease a few years ago, and his youngest (and only
> > surviving) son, age 13, has also been diagnosed with this disease.
>
> Natural selection strikes again.
>
Since you've escaped my twitfilter once again somehow...
If you're going to crosspost to hell and back, you stupid fuck, have the
courtesy to quote the post so people can see it.
Other people have told you more eloquently than I ever could what an evil,
scum sucking dipshit you are. I've met friendlier psychopaths.
So do please fuck off and die, preferably in a spectacular and horrible
fashion, so we can read about it in the papers.
<plonk>
Grace
--
"To you - is it movement or is it action?
Is it contact or just reaction?"
Neil Peart -=-Rush-=-The Enemy Within
http://www.liquid-grace.com
BAWAA Knight who says NI! aa#1752
EAC Vile Harridan and Deranged Harpy
Apostate
Might we have a pair of quotation marks around "evolutionism"
when it is used by those of normal intelligence?
--
/Apostate
atheist #1931 I've found it!
Christianity(tm) -- the official mythology of the Roman Empire Olympics.
Dave Horn
news:5B_97.67526$Cu6.4...@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
Jabriol's constant dodging of killfiles can be quite annoying, but one thing
never changes:
> On 25-Jul-2001, "*nemo*" <nemo...@yahoo.NOSPMPLS.com> wrote:
>
> > I just heard today of a tragedy in the life of a business
> > associate of mine. His second son, age 18, died due
> > to Hunter Syndrome. His first son died of the same
> > genetic disease a few years ago, and his youngest (and
> > only surviving) son, age 13, has also been diagnosed
> > with this disease.
>
> Natural selection strikes again.
But, of course, we know that Jabriol does not believe there is anything to
natural selection. To him, it's a myth.
And since that is the case, then it must be that God allowed this tragedy to
happen; and it is God that is to blame.
[Snip]
<Plonk>
Dave & Tami Chaffee
"Dave Horn" <dave...@ns.home.com> wrote in message
news:is4a7.2219$c8.9...@news1.denver1.co.home.com...
It's a miracle that someone with the severe form lives past fifteen, what a
generous blessing God gave him. Maybe I should pretend God exists, so I can
think he went to heaven. But God didn't help Jabriol see that this post was
inappropriate. Sad to think of surviving Hunter's for a decade and sad to
realize that Jabriol is so deeply hurt and dissatisfied with himself that he
needs to lash out. Jabriol, please seek professional help. Even you, with
all your mythological baggage, can be happy with the right treatment.
Saint Karollee DeSheba
>
> this is what kids learn in school. survival of the fittest.
* Would you rather they learn superstition and old useless myths?
> ye have learn quite well.
* Too bad that YOU Jabbers, can't learn at all.
>
>
> A human is no more than a more advance super ape.. a Human is still an
> animal, that follows the tenants of survival of the fittest.
* Oh? Is that why your cult forces those who need some medical treatments
to die,... because they consider them as "unfit?"
>
>
> Evolution is taught in real schools to real kids.
* So? What is your point?
>
> Uh no.. the only person who suffer the loss is the parent, and close
realted
> family. nobody else will care.. evolved life move on.
* No one in your cult cares when a member of your cult commits suicide over
the blood issue, so I ask again, what's your point?
>
>
> Actually I take delight in no ones death.
* You THRIVE like the compassionless GHOUL that you are when you read and
post about death and human tragedy. You FEAST on it like the buzzard you
are.
In fact I point people to the
> reality of human death and suffering.
* Right... all because of your selfish, spiteful, punishing killer god
Jehovah.... we've heard it all from you before. Like people don't know
others out there are dying. Most people who have PCs also have TVs and
radios.
> If we are evolved, then we must realize this as part of the natural cycle
> of evolution..
* And if we didn't evolve we must realize it's your vile, murderous, mass
killer Jehovah's killing cycle....
here today gone tommorrow.. nobody care.. therefore why
> should I?
* And somehow believing in some "creation" would make you a real human
being? Then believe in it if that's what it takes.
>
> > * Nope! Your god has answered all my prayers.... :o) ... while he
> > rots
> > your brain with seizure after seizure hoping to remove you from the
earth
* Looks like your god's trying to get rid of you before you encourage
another innocent person to kill themselves but he's doing a poor job of it.
Sheba
>
Saint Karollee DeSheba
Dave Horn <dave...@ns.home.com> wrote in message news:is4a7.2219
> But, of course, we know that Jabriol does not believe there is anything to
> natural selection. To him, it's a myth.
* Yep. He believes the devil made it all up to keep people from worshipping
his Watchtower Killer god Jehovah.
>
> And since that is the case, then it must be that God allowed this tragedy
to
> happen; and it is God that is to blame.
* Of course he believes it's all his god's doing! But being the sadist he
is he thinks his god is doing a great job....
Fuzzy One....
John R. Owens
And furthermore, might be causing the poor lad to suffer even worse for
all eternity (that's infinitely longer than he suffered on this earth,
if you can't work out the math). Oh, but that natural selection, that's
cruel and heartless... well, as much as apathy can be cruel. And being
opportunistic to point out how "cruel" this is... well, that's just his
calling, doing God's work.
--
--John R. Owens http://members.core.com/~jowens/
Buckler
wrote:
>
> Might we have a pair of quotation marks around "evolutionism"
>when it is used by those of normal intelligence?
My bad. Of course, then. "evolutionism". Keep in mind whom I was
adressing.
Jack Sullivan
Jabriol, you've been said to have caused one person to kill
themselves. Now you revel in the tragedy of another on your sick,
perverted mission. I hope there is a special place in your Hell for
you.
Jack Sullivan
Mattheq
<jab...@truthspeaker.net> wrote:
> On 25-Jul-2001, "*nemo*" <nemo...@yahoo.NOSPMPLS.com> wrote:
>
> > I just heard today of a tragedy in the life of a business associate of
> > mine.
> > His second son, age 18, died due to Hunter Syndrome. His first son died
> of
> > the same genetic disease a few years ago, and his youngest (and only
> > surviving) son, age 13, has also been diagnosed with this disease.
>
> Natural selection strikes again.
Jesus, you're a heartless bastard. What the fuck's wrong with you?
Mattheq
--
"And then, one Thursday nearly two thousand years after one man had been
nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a
change..." http://www.god-emperor.com Drop in!
IA i^8, His Holiness, Pope Mattheq I Atheist, #847
Louann Miller
>In article <5B_97.67526$Cu6.4...@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>, "Jabriol"
><jab...@truthspeaker.net> wrote:
(a friend's child is dead, nyah nyah.)
>Jesus, you're a heartless bastard. What the fuck's wrong with you?
IMHO you called it in your first sentence.
Pat James
(in message <na.8f73834aa3...@argonet.co.uk>):
> In article <5B_97.67526$Cu6.4...@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>, "Jabriol"
> <jab...@truthspeaker.net> wrote:
>> On 25-Jul-2001, "*nemo*" <nemo...@yahoo.NOSPMPLS.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I just heard today of a tragedy in the life of a business associate of
>>> mine.
>>> His second son, age 18, died due to Hunter Syndrome. His first son died
>> of
>>> the same genetic disease a few years ago, and his youngest (and only
>>> surviving) son, age 13, has also been diagnosed with this disease.
>>
>> Natural selection strikes again.
>
> Jesus, you're a heartless bastard.
Agreed. Not news, though.
> What the fuck's wrong with you?
He's Jabs. He's been that way for quite some time. He's responsible for at
least one person killing themselves, and _he's proud of it_. He through his
daughter out to become, to quote him, 'a crack whore', and _he's proud of
it_. He's Jabs. He's Evil.
--
Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive ignorance with
incredible arrogance.
Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A person
incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible true believer.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by Mattheq <mat...@argonet.co.uk>:
>In article <5B_97.67526$Cu6.4...@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>, "Jabriol"
><jab...@truthspeaker.net> wrote:
>> On 25-Jul-2001, "*nemo*" <nemo...@yahoo.NOSPMPLS.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I just heard today of a tragedy in the life of a business associate of
>> > mine.
>> > His second son, age 18, died due to Hunter Syndrome. His first son died
>> of
>> > the same genetic disease a few years ago, and his youngest (and only
>> > surviving) son, age 13, has also been diagnosed with this disease.
>>
>> Natural selection strikes again.
>
>Jesus, you're a heartless bastard. What the fuck's wrong with you?
He's an asshole; one can tell by the product.
--
(Note followups, if any)
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness
to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt."
--H. L. Mencken
Bored With The Boring Again
wrote:
>
>On 25-Jul-2001, "*nemo*" <nemo...@yahoo.NOSPMPLS.com> wrote:
>
>> I just heard today of a tragedy in the life of a business associate of
>> mine.
>> His second son, age 18, died due to Hunter Syndrome. His first son died of
>> the same genetic disease a few years ago, and his youngest (and only
>> surviving) son, age 13, has also been diagnosed with this disease.
>
>Natural selection strikes again.
Fuck you, you miserable subhuman turd.
Erikc (alt.atheist #002) | "An Fhirinne in aghaidh an tSaoil."
BAAWA Knight | "The Truth against the World."
| -- Bardic Motto
Awarded title of "Defacto CLuM" by "kansan" 2001-05-12
======
Remove god to respond.
======
At one point in time, many of us actually had Jesus as
our personal lord and saviour. Unfortunately, we later
had to dismiss him for incompetence, gross negligence,
misconduct and consistent failure to show up for work.
---
Religious people believe IN god.
The religious right believes they ARE god.
Robt Gotschall
jab...@truthspeaker.net says...
>
> this is what kids learn in school. survival of the fittest.
And yet, you survive.
rg
Buckler
wrote:
>
>On 1-Aug-2001, Buckler <buck...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I notice in advance that you failed to address the salient points of
my post; nevertheless...
>
>> Oh, I understand quite well what you're getting at. You want to point
>> out the "failings" of evolutionism, through the use of dark sarcasm.
>> Pointing out every loss of life as merely a result of "natural
>> selection", then waiting for the fevered response. You want people to
>> see evolutionism and the concept of natural selection as heartless,
>> evil things. You know what? You're right.
>
>this is what kids learn in school. survival of the fittest.
You would prefer, perhaps, that they learn about a mythical "sky
daddy", waiting to punish them for any wrongdoings?
>> Natural selection is as heartless as one can get. Like earthquakes,
>> like hurricanes, like the sea, and like any other force of nature,
>> natural selection doesn't know who gets in its way, nor does it care.
>
>ye have learn quite well.
Thank you. I can only hope that you achieve the same level of
education as I.
>> Because I have humanity enough to know when debate stops, and being a
>> human being begins. You seem to lack that.
>
>A human is no more than a more advance super ape.. a Human is still an
>animal, that follows the tenants of survival of the fittest.
Name me a living thing that does not try to survive.
>
>
>> When it comes down to it, though, you are
>> talking to real people, in real places.
>
>Evolution is taught in real schools to real kids.
Thankfully, yes. Since it is the overriding scientific view, I would
expect nothing less in a science class.
>
>
>> When one suffers such a loss,
>> it is a very real loss, not just to them, but to all of us.
>
>Uh no.. the only person who suffer the loss is the parent, and close realted
>family. nobody else will care.. evolved life move on.
More proof of your lack of empathy. I pity you, that you feel so
little for your fellow humans. You must be a very sad and lonely
person. You have my sympathies.
>> Jabriol, your point is well taken, allright? I won't be so foolish as
>> to ask you to stop delighting in every death you hear of, since that
>> seems to be a part of your nature.
>
>Actually I take delight in no ones death. In fact I point people to the
>reality of human death and suffering.
Do you really? I was under the impression that the JW "reality" was
that the righteous go to Heaven (or in any event, the salvation of the
144,000. I find it impossible for you to be included in this number).
>If we are evolved, then we must realize this as part of the natural cycle
>of evolution.. here today gone tommorrow.. nobody care.. therefore why
>should I?
Nobidy cares? Tell me, have you ever been to a funeral?
>
>carols personally thrive to se people suffer she wrote:
>> * Nope! Your god has answered all my prayers.... :o) ... while he
>> rots
>> your brain with seizure after seizure hoping to remove you from the earth
This makes absolutely zero sense, so I cannot respond to it.
Tallyman
Mattheq wrote:
>
> In article <5B_97.67526$Cu6.4...@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>, "Jabriol"
> <jab...@truthspeaker.net> wrote:
> > On 25-Jul-2001, "*nemo*" <nemo...@yahoo.NOSPMPLS.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I just heard today of a tragedy in the life of a business associate of
> > > mine.
> > > His second son, age 18, died due to Hunter Syndrome. His first son died
> > of
> > > the same genetic disease a few years ago, and his youngest (and only
> > > surviving) son, age 13, has also been diagnosed with this disease.
> >
> > Natural selection strikes again.
> Jesus, you're a heartless bastard. What the fuck's wrong with you?
Mattheq,
It is a simple answer.
Jabriol is a Faithful, Devout jehovah's Witness.
He is a spokesman for the Doctrinal Positions of the Watchtower Society.
Jabriol shows us, graphically, what the Watchtower really believes
and is fairly salivating at the Butchering of 99.99% of all mankind...
and that includes you.
Jabriol, along with the rest of his loyal jehovah Witness brethren,
regard you as a 'mentally-diseased' filthy, worldly dog
and have you marked for EXTERMINATION.
Remember that, the next time, the friendly, smiling fresh faces
of the jehovah's Witnesses come calling at your door
on some Saturday morning.
Jessica
heartless, evil things. You know what? You're right.
>
>
> > like hurricanes, like the sea, and like any other force of nature,
> > natural selection doesn't know who gets in its way, nor does it care.
Stoichastic events are about as cruel and heartless as things get, but
nothing in the above has anything to do with natural selection. If an
earthquake wipes out 3/4 of the human population of California, it wasn't
because these people's phenotypes were any different that the other 1/4.
They just got *screwed* over by an Act of God.
Now, being human, we feel a terrible loss when one of our own close to us
passes away, but what the hell does this have to do with evolution in most
cases? The human race has put itself into a catch 22 loophole where even
the most unhealthy and unfit of us can live to reproduce. What is the real
tradgedy is that the same medical system that keeps us all so reproductively
equal doesn't do sweet FA to control all of the F*** ups it creates. So
while it's good that we can save someone from a lifethreatening illness, and
give them the opportunity to lead happy healthy lives, we unfortunately may
have to repeat the process with their kids. And then it's just *tragic*
that these poor kids are ill and in need of medical intervention. Like I
said, catch 22....
The point is this; natural selection acts in nature. Humans have removed
themselves from this cycle in any advanced society. When people die, it's
most often because "s*** happens." Car accidents, cigarettes (that'll be
me, Im guessing), and the fact that we have *artificially* selected to
increase the lifespans of those that would have kicked the bucket at say, 9,
through medical intervention. We're not superapes, or even comparable to
something like H. erectus.
The difference between natural selection and the escape from it that humans
have taken is that natural selection is oh... 99.9% fair, and will always be
that way. "He who works, gets bread." While humans, on the other hand,
have reinvented the definition of fair to include a perfection where
everybody lives to be eighty nine, and if natural selection dares to
intervene, then something is very very wrong (eeeeeevil)... It's very easy
to call another the evil, by virtue of the fact that it exists, when it's
really *us* creating most of the tragety.
Religions are a prime example. Some poor boy is struck by a car; purely a
stoichastic event. A blood transfusion would save his life, but mom and dad
say no on religious grounds. Well way to go on the part of such an
intelligent species. Let the kid DIE just because?? Yuck! Was this boy
not as fit as any other? Alternatively, a boy is a hemophiliac, and
requires transfusion after transfusion after transfusion, as do his sister's
2 sons, and his sister's daughters' 8 sons, and so on... We call this a
tradgety of natural selection, but really, it's something we perpetuate by
being too damn smart. It's evil not to intervene by social standards, and
evil to intervene by natural standards... So as humans, both adanced and yet
subject to nature, where do we draw the line, if at all?
Whether or not this is a *bad thing* is up to each individual to decide.
What I see as a great failing is that we base these decisions on religious
or otherwise fluff-based ground, and not on *common sense.*
I have a major beef with cystic fibrosis. In today's society a simple blood
test between a couple will tell if one or both are carriers, and yet even
with the knowledge that 50% of two carrier's kids will have the full blown
disease, there is often no choice made to instead use a donor sperm or egg
to prevent having children who will suffer tremendously for the entirety of
their short lives. But who am I to step in and 'correct' someone elses
morals in that sense? I personally find it cruel and heartless to knowingly
subject your offspring to a high probability of life-long suffering, and yet
it's none-of-my-goddamn-business...
John R. Owens
>
<snip>
>
> I have a major beef with cystic fibrosis. In today's society a simple blood
> test between a couple will tell if one or both are carriers, and yet even
> with the knowledge that 50% of two carrier's kids will have the full blown
> disease, there is often no choice made to instead use a donor sperm or egg
> to prevent having children who will suffer tremendously for the entirety of
> their short lives. But who am I to step in and 'correct' someone elses
> morals in that sense? I personally find it cruel and heartless to knowingly
> subject your offspring to a high probability of life-long suffering, and yet
> it's none-of-my-goddamn-business...
Just to pick at a little nit here, I don't know a lot about CF, but if
it's recessive, as implied by the fact that there is such a thing as a
carrier, wouldn't it be a 25% chance for the children to have it?
Tinks
The Boring Again") wrote:
>On 1 Aug 2001 17:33:26 -0400, "Jabriol" <jab...@truthspeaker.net>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>On 25-Jul-2001, "*nemo*" <nemo...@yahoo.NOSPMPLS.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I just heard today of a tragedy in the life of a business associate of
>>> mine.
>>> His second son, age 18, died due to Hunter Syndrome. His first son died of
>>> the same genetic disease a few years ago, and his youngest (and only
>>> surviving) son, age 13, has also been diagnosed with this disease.
>>
>>Natural selection strikes again.
>
>Fuck you, you miserable subhuman turd.
Carol, I'd say there were a wealth of sigs that Jabby will aprreciate
in this thread alone....
Tinks
altheim
"Jessica" <see.sp...@home.com> wrote:
> You want people to see evolutionism and the concept of natural selection
> as heartless, evil things. You know what? You're right.
> >
> > this is what kids learn in school. survival of the fittest.
> >
> > > Natural selection is as heartless as one can get. Like earthquakes,
> > > like hurricanes, like the sea, and like any other force of nature,
> > > natural selection doesn't know who gets in its way, nor does it care.
>
> I have a major beef with cystic fibrosis. In today's society a simple
blood
> test between a couple will tell if one or both are carriers, and yet even
> with the knowledge that 50% of two carrier's kids will have the full blown
> disease, there is often no choice made to instead use a donor sperm or egg
> to prevent having children who will suffer tremendously for the entirety
of
> their short lives. But who am I to step in and 'correct' someone elses
> morals in that sense? I personally find it cruel and heartless to
knowingly
> subject your offspring to a high probability of life-long suffering, and
yet
> it's none-of-my-goddamn-business...
>
with the potential to bear a child with a genetic disease to
go ahead and do so. So, since you see a problem, sufficient
to raise it here, perhaps you are the right person to "step in".
Don't you think, that if there were any danger of your
grandchildren meeting, falling in love with and ultimately
bearing the children of a CF carrier that it might after all
be your "goddamn business"?
--
altheim
altheim
"Tallyman" <tall...@intrex.net> wrote:
> Mattheq wrote:
> > "Jabriol" <jab...@truthspeaker.net> wrote:
> > > "nemo*" <nemo...@yahoo.NOSPMPLS.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I just heard today of a tragedy in the life of a business associate
of
> > > > mine. His second son, age 18, died due to Hunter Syndrome. His
> > > > youngest (and only surviving) son, age 13, has also been diagnosed
> > > > with this disease.
> > >
> > > Natural selection strikes again.
>
>
> > Jesus, you're a heartless bastard. What the fuck's wrong with you?
>> Mattheq,
>
> Jabriol, along with the rest of his loyal jehovah Witness brethren,
> regard you as a 'mentally-diseased' filthy, worldly dog
> and have you marked for EXTERMINATION.
Could someone tell me what I am missing? What on earth
has Jabriol done to deserve such venom? Taken at face
value, to this newcomer, his statement above does not
sound unreasonable.
--
altheim
Jessica
> it's recessive, as implied by the fact that there is such a thing as a
> carrier, wouldn't it be a 25% chance for the children to have it?
Yeah, actually you're right... It was like 1AM when I wrote that, and I
didn't think through what I thought I remembered (oops, but thank you).
There is a 50% chance of passing on the recessive gene. 50% of a carrier's
eggs or sperm will carry the defect. So an egg with the gene then has a
50% chance of meeting a sperm with the gene, resulting in CF. 25% of
offspring will be 100% CF gene free, and 50% will carry with no outward
effects (at least none that matter in this day and age). Mind you, that's
just statistical fluff... say, if you were to have 30 children, you'd start
to see those ratios. I know a family that lives close by. They have 2
kids, both with CF, and everywhere they go, they tote a bag full bottles of
pills. The air quality has been so poor all summer, I haven't seen them
outside more than twice... I was taking my landlady's kids swimming at my
grandmothers, and said they could bring a friend. Unfortunately, the little
girl's friend couldn't come out. Not safe... I just find it tragic that
their parents knew ahead of time that their kids would very possibly be ill,
and yet it is better to have kids that are genetically your own, than to
have say, an anonymous sperm donor, and have kids who will be able to live
long, happy healthy kids, able to have children of their own. One of the
downfalls of having CF, regardless of how long medicine will keep them
alive, is that one is almost always infertile...
Ferrous Patella
Again says...
>
>On 1 Aug 2001 17:33:26 -0400, "Jabriol" <jab...@truthspeaker.net>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>On 25-Jul-2001, "*nemo*" <nemo...@yahoo.NOSPMPLS.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I just heard today of a tragedy in the life of a business associate of
>>> mine.
>>> His second son, age 18, died due to Hunter Syndrome. His first son
died of
>>> the same genetic disease a few years ago, and his youngest (and only
>>> surviving) son, age 13, has also been diagnosed with this disease.
>>
>>Natural selection strikes again.
>
>
>
>
>Erikc
Erikc, I think you need to stop holding back and really express yourself.
I mean, how do you really feel about Jabby?
--
Ferrous Patella
Name changed to suedough latin to avoid false positives on Mark V units
Ken Cox
> this is what kids learn in school. survival of the fittest.
The odd thing is that he hasn't even noticed how his latest
nastiness differs from the usual.
Normally -- if such a word can be used -- Jabriol finds some
case of someone murdering/raping/stealing/whatever, and tries
to blame that on evolution. This is stupid, obviously, but
at least one *might* make the argument that, were evolution
not taught in the schools, this would not have happened.
Here, the case is that several people have died of a genetic
disease. So why is Jabriol "blaming" evolution? It's not
like these people would have lived, were evolution not taught
in the schools.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Alan Morgan
He's got a history. If someone committed suicide Jabriol says
that they are just following the guidelines of evolution. Did your
child die? That's natural selection. Are you suffering from a
painful and terminal disease? That's the triumph of Darwinism.
There is no tragedy that Jabriol can not turn (however incoherently)
into a (negative) reference to evolution (a subject on which he has
basically no understanding).
He is totally lacking in basic human compassion and empathy and
demonstrates this at every possible turn.
Alan
Mean Mister Mustard
Jessica <see.sp...@home.com> wrote:
>I have a major beef with cystic fibrosis. In today's society a simple blood
>test between a couple will tell if one or both are carriers, and yet even
>with the knowledge that 50% of two carrier's kids will have the full blown
>disease, there is often no choice made to instead use a donor sperm or egg
>to prevent having children who will suffer tremendously for the entirety of
>their short lives. But who am I to step in and 'correct' someone elses
>morals in that sense? I personally find it cruel and heartless to knowingly
>subject your offspring to a high probability of life-long suffering, and yet
>it's none-of-my-goddamn-business...
Thank you for sharing with the whole world how morally
superior you consider your"self" to these other people....
--
The words are mine; the meaning is you.
Mean Mister Mustard
>Could someone tell me what I am missing? What on earth
>has Jabriol done to deserve such venom? Taken at face
>value, to this newcomer, his statement above does not
>sound unreasonable.
It's called insecurity-driven "self"-righteousness building
via public comparison with and/or judgement of others whom
one deems less righteous than one's "self"....
Dave & Tami Chaffee
>
> On 3-Aug-2001, "Dave & Tami Chaffee" <drch...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > so why are peole getting upset of a scientific fact, that is taught in
> > > schools?
> >
> > There is no requirement to enjoy every scientific fact, like the
> > occasional
> > genetic disaster, or death. But, if people are upset, it's probably due
> > to
> > your cruel, irresponsible nature more than anything else. It is a fact
> > that
> > evolution occurred. Therefore, it should be taught in schools. Deal
with
> > it.
>
> then you should deal with the results.. survial of the fittest says: me
> before you always...
>
Don't be silly, it says no such thing. Your understanding is a sad "straw
man" caricature. Learn something
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/fac/cameron/phil.sci/lct.creationism1.htm
l
> --
altheim
"Mean Mister Mustard" <kj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Jessica <see.sp...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >I have a major beef with cystic fibrosis. In today's society a simple
blood
> >test between a couple will tell if one or both are carriers, and yet even
> >with the knowledge that 50% of two carrier's kids will have the full
blown
> >disease, there is often no choice made to instead use a donor sperm or
egg
> >to prevent having children who will suffer tremendously for the entirety
of
> >their short lives. But who am I to step in and 'correct' someone elses
> >morals in that sense? I personally find it cruel and heartless to
knowingly
> >subject your offspring to a high probability of life-long suffering, and
yet
> >it's none-of-my-goddamn-business...
>
> Thank you for sharing with the whole world how morally
> superior you consider your"self" to these other people....
I'm not sure how you arrive at the opinion that Jessica is
being "superior". Most folk, myself included, would find it
hard to remain so objective. Perhaps by now you will have
seen my response to Jessica about her post. How would
you react if faced with the opportunity to advise a couple
wanting a child but knowing they were both carriers of
some nasty genetic malady? Wouldn't you worry about
the child? Wouldn't you worry that, even if it skipped getting
the disease him/herself it might still pass it on to another
generation?
--
altheim
Ken Cox
> Could someone tell me what I am missing? What on earth
> has Jabriol done to deserve such venom? Taken at face
> value, to this newcomer, his statement above does not
> sound unreasonable.
Check the Google news archives for other Jabriol messages.
It might help you understand the reaction.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
WT-X-Poza
--
Durondae...
Men (LIKE JABRIOL) never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<~~~<~~{@
Tinks <spydr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3b6a46b9...@news.earthlink.net...
> >
> >Fuck you, you miserable subhuman turd. (said one poster to Jabriol).
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>Just to pick at a little nit here, I don't know a lot about CF, but if
>it's recessive, as implied by the fact that there is such a thing as a
>carrier, wouldn't it be a 25% chance for the children to have it?
Each child has a 25% chance of having the disease, a 25% chance of
being totally free of it and a 50% chance of being a carrier.
--
Al - Unnumbered Atheist #infinity
rukbat at optonline dot net
Al Klein
<drch...@home.com> posted in alt.atheism:
>It's a miracle that someone with the severe form lives past fifteen, what a
>generous blessing God gave him. Maybe I should pretend God exists, so I can
>think he went to heaven. But God didn't help Jabriol see that this post was
>inappropriate. Sad to think of surviving Hunter's for a decade and sad to
>realize that Jabriol is so deeply hurt and dissatisfied with himself that he
>needs to lash out. Jabriol, please seek professional help. Even you, with
>all your mythological baggage, can be happy with the right treatment.
Even if the "right treatment", in Jabbers' case, is probably a
lobotomy, heavy sedation and rubber walls for the rest of his life.
Al Klein
alt.atheism:
>On 1 Aug 2001 17:33:26 -0400, "Jabriol" <jab...@truthspeaker.net>
>wrote:
>>On 25-Jul-2001, "*nemo*" <nemo...@yahoo.NOSPMPLS.com> wrote:
>>> I just heard today of a tragedy in the life of a business associate of
>>> mine.
>>> His second son, age 18, died due to Hunter Syndrome. His first son died of
>>> the same genetic disease a few years ago, and his youngest (and only
>>> surviving) son, age 13, has also been diagnosed with this disease.
>>Natural selection strikes again.
>Jabriol, you are one of the most vile, horrible, evil people I have
>ever had the displeasure to encounter, either in meatspace or the
>'net. Have you no humanity? No empathy? No sense of connection to
>other human beings in any meaningful way?
Of course not - he's a Jehovah's Witless.
Tinks
<FREAKS-li...@theWTs.net> wrote:
>More than I can harvest and process Tinks, more than I can harvest.....
>--
Hehe! Thank gawd it's summertime and the days are longer than the
nights for harvesting ..... ;o)
Tinks
John R. Owens
I don't think lobotomy is an option for him at this time.
John R. Owens
>
> On 3-Aug-2001, "Dave & Tami Chaffee" <drch...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > so why are peole getting upset of a scientific fact, that is taught in
> > > schools?
> >
> > There is no requirement to enjoy every scientific fact, like the
> > occasional
> > genetic disaster, or death. But, if people are upset, it's probably due
> > to
> > your cruel, irresponsible nature more than anything else. It is a fact
> > that
> > evolution occurred. Therefore, it should be taught in schools. Deal with
> > it.
>
> then you should deal with the results.. survial of the fittest says: me
> before you always...
See, that's the funny thing about evolution: if you try to use it as a
moral or ethical guide, you find that you can twist interpretations of
it to mean whatever fits your preconceived notions. Much like the
Bible. Difference is, evolution dosn't make any claim at all to be a
guide to ethics and morals. The Bible claims to be the final word on
the matter.
To me, survival of the fittest says "Hey, I better do all I can to help
my fellow man improve from this somewhat backwards state we're currently
in, or this species is gonna crash HARD". Certainly, there's nothing in
survival of the fittest that makes this approach a foregone conclusion.
The difference being, I start out with the interests of my fellow man
(and woman) at heart.
Bored With The Boring Again
wrote:
>
>On 2-Aug-2001, resta...@theend.com (Robt Gotschall) wrote:
>
>> > this is what kids learn in school. survival of the fittest.
>>
>> And yet, you survive.
>
>I learn well.
Does that mean that you can simulate normal human behaviour long
enough to survive -brief- encounters with normal humans?
Tom
<3b6bef8f$0$12817$272e...@news.execpc.com>, "John stated..."
[...snip...]
> See, that's the funny thing about evolution: if you try to use it as a
>moral or ethical guide, you find that you can twist interpretations of
>it to mean whatever fits your preconceived notions. Much like the
>Bible. Difference is, evolution dosn't make any claim at all to be a
>guide to ethics and morals. The Bible claims to be the final word on
>the matter.
> To me, survival of the fittest says "Hey, I better do all I can to help
>my fellow man improve from this somewhat backwards state we're currently
>in, or this species is gonna crash HARD". Certainly, there's nothing in
>survival of the fittest that makes this approach a foregone conclusion.
>The difference being, I start out with the interests of my fellow man
>(and woman) at heart.
Many of the "creationists" tell us that there is a big difference
between "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution". The creationists can
accept micro-evolution. Micro-evolution, they say, is the variation
within "kinds", such as within "man-kind". They recognize that
micro-evolution has been observed. And many of them argue that on
Noah's Ark there were a relatively small number of kinds. In
particular, that there were eight humans on the Ark, and all of the
varieties of humans alive today micro-evolved from those eight.
Some may accept that Neanderthals or perhaps even _Homo_erectus_
were in man-kind. Macro-evolution, the only evolution that they
deny, is the appearance of a new kind, marked by a major new organ
or other bodily feature.
Now, back to the question of morality and evolution. If somebody
wants to invoke evolution for morality or immorality, it is *not*
about humans growing a new organ. It is *not* about forming a new
kind, separate from man-kind. It is *not* about macro-evolution.
Nobody seriously would say that evolutionary morality tells us that
we should grow new organs. There is no way that macro-evolution
could be seriously considered as a moral guide.
If the creationists find evolution morally repugnant, it is
*micro*evolution. What the creationists are telling us is that
the degree of evolution that *they* *accept* is evil.
Tom Scharle
altheim
"Jabriol" <jab...@truthspeaker.net> wrote:
> "Dave & Tami Chaffee" <drch...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > > so why are peole getting upset of a scientific fact, that is taught in
> > > schools?
> >
> > There is no requirement to enjoy every scientific fact, like the
> > occasional genetic disaster, or death. But, if people are upset,
> > it's probably due to your cruel, irresponsible nature more than
> > anything else. It is a fact that evolution occurred. Therefore,
> > it should be taught in schools. Deal with it.
>
> then you should deal with the results.. survial of the fittest says: me
> before you always...
Nonsense Jabriol, humans will say that whether they are
sufficiently fit or not. Nature decides who survives.
--
altheim
altheim
>
> >Could someone tell me what I am missing? What on earth
> >has Jabriol done to deserve such venom? Taken at face
> >value, to this newcomer, his statement above does not
> >sound unreasonable.
>
> It's called insecurity-driven "self"-righteousness building
> via public comparison with and/or judgement of others whom
> one deems less righteous than one's "self"....
So... you don't like him. Is that because he wins arguments,
or because he loses them?
--
altheim
Rufio
""Bored With The Boring Again"" <fire...@god.airmail.net> wrote in message
news:3b6b664f....@news.airmail.net...
> On 3 Aug 2001 05:45:52 -0400, "Jabriol" <jab...@truthspeaker.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >On 2-Aug-2001, resta...@theend.com (Robt Gotschall) wrote:
> >
> >> > this is what kids learn in school. survival of the fittest.
> >>
> >> And yet, you survive.
> >
> >I learn well.
>
> Does that mean that you can simulate normal human behaviour long
> enough to survive -brief- encounters with normal humans?
>
>
Brief Encounters - isn't that where you stand on a dark foggy railway
station platform and say goodbye to your loved one?
John R. Owens
>
> ""Bored With The Boring Again"" <fire...@god.airmail.net> wrote in message
> news:3b6b664f....@news.airmail.net...
> > On 3 Aug 2001 05:45:52 -0400, "Jabriol" <jab...@truthspeaker.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >On 2-Aug-2001, resta...@theend.com (Robt Gotschall) wrote:
> > >
> > >> > this is what kids learn in school. survival of the fittest.
> > >>
> > >> And yet, you survive.
> > >
> > >I learn well.
> >
> > Does that mean that you can simulate normal human behaviour long
> > enough to survive -brief- encounters with normal humans?
> >
> >
>
> Brief Encounters - isn't that where you stand on a dark foggy railway
> station platform and say goodbye to your loved one?
>
No, that's where you check their underwear. Which I don't even want to
*think* of with the subject at hand. <shudder>
Jessica
> > morals in that sense? I personally find it cruel and heartless to
> knowingly
> > subject your offspring to a high probability of life-long suffering, and
> yet
> > it's none-of-my-goddamn-business...
> >
> You obviously feel it is morally wrong to allow two people
> with the potential to bear a child with a genetic disease to
> go ahead and do so. So, since you see a problem, sufficient
> to raise it here, perhaps you are the right person to "step in".
>
> Don't you think, that if there were any danger of your
> grandchildren meeting, falling in love with and ultimately
> bearing the children of a CF carrier that it might after all
> be your "goddamn business"?
Well, since my children don't carry that gene, I won't have to face that
with anyone more closely related to me than perhaps my great grandchildren -
and I won't be around that long. However what you failed to take into
account was that I specifically said A) Who am I to correct anothers
morals? and B) It's none of my goddamn business if people want to do so. I
mean this in the sense that it is not my mind to tell them to *not* have
children together. I only said that I personally find it an avoidable
tragedy. My visceral gut reaction is to feel that it is something cruel. I
don't impose that view on anyone but myself. If I were faced with that
situation in my own family, I wouldn't place *blame* on the parents. Even
though I have a personal issue with the whole idea of taking chances that
have their consequences on others (one's children), I still respect that
they had their reasons, whether I agree with them or not... It just takes
the effort of getting past the visceral reaction. It takes all of 30
seconds. *shrug*
I have every right in the world to say I find it upsetting, but no right in
the world to tell someone not to have their very own flesh and blood
offspring. If you think about it, you'll see this situation's similarity to
that of the talk of blood transfusions. Most of us think it's okay to
*freak out* when someone knowingly puts their already born child at risk of
dying on religious/moral grounds; it's senseless, and yet to do so ahead of
time is generally seen as okay. I just happen to see less of a difference,
and feel perfectly comfortable saying so. You just won't find me crusading
my opinion with a free magazine of propaganda at your front door on Sunday
morning.
Jessica
of
> the most brightest minds in science? Show his picture to a highschool girl
> and ask her.. would she marry him. She will vomit right in your face. Her
> mind is on Jimmy pectoral longjohnson.. and she carrys a condom in her
> bookbag just in case he invite her to a date right after the game. She
would
> love to have his Baby..a dn if thing don't work out, she can always go the
> school counselor and get an appointment to the abort junior an donate his
or
> her stemcells right behind her parents back or without their consent.
Actually, most school kids I know wouldn't vomit in the face of Steven
Hawking. I may not want to marry the guy, for whatever selfish reasons
(such as hey, I like a guy who can give me a close hug), but as a
schoolgirl, and now, I thought he'd be one *cool* person to know. Perhaps
he would hit it off with Miss. Wheelchair? If you're vomitting at the
handicapped, you've got some prejudices to work out.
As well, the majority of school kids, regardless of how easily they will
follow their hormones, aren't all that eagar to have anyone's baby, or have
an abortion (you talk about it like it's as easy as deciding what to wear,
because regardless of how pro-choice a person is, it's a hard decision with
very emotional after effects.) So your scratch-surface defense here is
meaningless.
> this is the end result of evolution theory in school to kids who cant even
> add 2+2.
Actually, they teach that first. Evolution comes with the Hardy-Weinberg
level of mathematics.
> Does anybody remember the insane reasoning behind the Columbine school
> shootings.. A vendetta against sport jocks.. who got all the attention and
> support on the school. Well they decided to wipe them out, and the whole
> school for cracking on them.. who care.. even a girl who did belive in
God..
> got killed.. just a sarcastic act.. to prove a point.Ya see kids.. no
God..
These boys were deeply disturbed, and I'm sure a number of kids in
highschool contributed to pushing them to that edge - mind you, most of
those kids are probably . I sincerely doubt that anyone involved in that
massacre "got what they deserved." It was awful. Their reason was revenge
sought out of an inability to cope with the anger and pain they had been
caused by a number of individuals. In this inability, they projected all of
their inner turmoil outward... towards anyone from their highschool, with
any of the "flaws" they saw in the people who had been the actual
perpetrators. When I was in highschool, I hung out with the weird looking
kids... A few of the guys were effeminate enough to be fingered as queer
(and they were). People would spit on them in the hallway, and worse. Have
you ever seen what a jaw looks like when it's been literally spilt through
the chin? The jockish athletic types were infact the object of their
complaints as well, even though it was perhaps 10 out of 150 individuals who
had actually ever done anything to them. Yet thankfully, none of the people
I knew ever retalliated. You have no idea of the suffering that being
ridiculed on a daily basis causes unless you've been on the receiving end.
It messes a kid up. At first they just don't want to go to school, then
they start to hate the people who cause their pain, then they start to
dislike themselves... Sometimes they find a way to deal with it all and come
through with nothing but bad memories. Sometimes they can't, and anger,
pain and resentment burn away inside them, and sometimes worse.... it
escapes them. If it messes up a quiet non-agressive kid, the most tragic
thing he may do is commit suicide. If it messes up kids who have the
capacity to be violent, then it can go far beyond that. Though these two
guys from Columbine are every bit guilty for what they did, I really hope
the people who teased the crap out of them realize that they fueled a raging
fire. Their reasoning was based on the absence of reason. Blinding
hatred... God doesn't come into play as a belief or figure in any of it.
The victims were just that. For all the good that comment about God is
worth, you might as well make a reference to the Holocaust!! *Come on!*
> I am sure that if these kids were given an alternate viewpoint, those 15
> would still be alive today.
What those kids needed wasn't some religion to save them... They needed
institutional therapy. If your inner anguish is so volatile, no words of
wisdom will do when you'll simply be back on the street again when your hour
with the shrink/priest/minister is up. Between the two of them, they were
not rational enough to stop themselves... Unless God came out of the sky
and had a personal conversation with them, no religious fanatics showing
them *ANY* way would make a difference.
So no I am not critizing evolution.. I am
> criritizingf the way it is taught and force on american school kids, and
the
> effects it has..
Religious education is taught forcefully in religious institutions
(churches, mosques, synagogues, separate schools). Who's complaining? Do
you think non-religious people are the only one's in this world doing
anything wrong? Are you aware of how many wars in this world were and are
based *soley* on religious grounds?? "Our God is better than your God, both
say thou shalt not kill, but since you don't believe in our God, we're
going to paint the ground red with your blood, and adorn the trees with your
severed limbs and entrails."
> No. but religion.. or in this case the Bible would have given some sort of
> hope, the reason they are sick, why they are going to die, and would they
> live again elsewhere..
Even if you teach someone religious beliefs, there is no guarantee that
they'll stick. I was raised in a very Catholic family, and yet in
adulthood, I've found it's just not for me. I've seen evolution in action.
I can hardly say the same about religion. I'm not an atheist, but if I'm
dying of some genetic disease, I feel more comfortable blaming it on
genetics as opposed to some unseen force. Sure, I'd like to believe I won't
just fade into nothingness, but it doesn't make the prospect of death itself
any more or less comforting. Sure I have hope, but I don't need someone
else to say "well, 100,000,000 others believe this in faith (without proof),
therefore it is a more reliable hope." Yeeeeeeeeah Right....
altheim
"Jabriol" <jab...@truthspeaker.net> wrote:
> On 4-Aug-2001, "altheim" <alt...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > It's called insecurity-driven "self"-righteousness building
> > > via public comparison with and/or judgement of others whom
> > > one deems less righteous than one's "self"....
> >
> > So... you don't like him. Is that because he wins arguments,
> > or because he loses them?
> >
pitiful.
LOL gotta admire your confidence. Looking forward to
seeing such a master in action ;-)
--
altheim
Louann Miller
>> Don't you think, that if there were any danger of your
>> grandchildren meeting, falling in love with and ultimately
>> bearing the children of a CF carrier that it might after all
>> be your "goddamn business"?
>
>Well, since my children don't carry that gene, I won't have to face that
>with anyone more closely related to me than perhaps my great grandchildren -
>and I won't be around that long.
CF, incidentally, is perhaps not the best example for this argument
because the treatments are getting way better way fast. A friend of
mine with CF recently died at the age of 37, and a lot of that was
cumulative damage from all the years when his lungs were getting
treated with drugs less effective than the current ones. (Not to
mention the prospect of gene therapy, although we USAns may have to
sneak off to Europe or Japan to get it if Dubya screws up current
policy-making.) Short of a complete cure it will never be a picnic,
but if it's "only" as debilitating as say Type 1 diabetes things would
be a heck of a lot better.
Bored With The Boring Again
Al Klein
>Al Klein wrote:
>> On 2 Aug 2001 02:51:26 -0400, "Dave & Tami Chaffee"
>> <drch...@home.com> posted in alt.atheism:
>> >It's a miracle that someone with the severe form lives past fifteen, what a
>> >generous blessing God gave him. Maybe I should pretend God exists, so I can
>> >think he went to heaven. But God didn't help Jabriol see that this post was
>> >inappropriate. Sad to think of surviving Hunter's for a decade and sad to
>> >realize that Jabriol is so deeply hurt and dissatisfied with himself that he
>> >needs to lash out. Jabriol, please seek professional help. Even you, with
>> >all your mythological baggage, can be happy with the right treatment.
>> Even if the "right treatment", in Jabbers' case, is probably a
>> lobotomy, heavy sedation and rubber walls for the rest of his life.
> I don't think lobotomy is an option for him at this time.
How silly of me. Lobotomy means removal of a lobe of the BRAIN.
Lithotomy?
Ken Cox
> Al Klein wrote:
> > Even if the "right treatment", in Jabbers' case, is probably a
> > lobotomy, heavy sedation and rubber walls for the rest of his life.
> I don't think lobotomy is an option for him at this time.
Nonsense. They're doing amazing things with microsurgery
these days.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Ken Cox
> On 3-Aug-2001, Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> wrote:
> > Normally -- if such a word can be used -- Jabriol finds some
> > case of someone murdering/raping/stealing/whatever, and tries
> > to blame that on evolution.
> Wrong.
No, it's an accurate description of your behavior. Though I did
omit some of the more offensive aspects, like your cross-posts to
rape and incest support groups.
> > Here, the case is that several people have died of a genetic
> > disease. So why is Jabriol "blaming" evolution? It's not
> > like these people would have lived, were evolution not taught
> > in the schools.
> No. but religion.. or in this case the Bible would have given some sort of
> hope, the reason they are sick, why they are going to die, and would they
> live again elsewhere.
But they would still *die*, wouldn't they? And if we stop
teaching evolution in the schools, people with this genetic
disease will continue to die. Whereas, if we keep the level
of biology education up, a cure for this disease, and other
genetic diseases, may be found.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Ken Cox
> I win so many arguments when it come to this sort of reality, it is pitiful.
It is, indeed, pitiful. Take heart, though -- your nastiness
is such that no one actually pities you.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Bored With The Boring Again
More like faecalithotomy.
Mean Mister Mustard
altheim <alt...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>> >I have a major beef with cystic fibrosis. In today's society a simple
>blood
>> >test between a couple will tell if one or both are carriers, and yet even
>> >with the knowledge that 50% of two carrier's kids will have the full
>blown
>> >disease, there is often no choice made to instead use a donor sperm or
>egg
>> >to prevent having children who will suffer tremendously for the entirety
>of
>> >their short lives. But who am I to step in and 'correct' someone elses
>> >morals in that sense? I personally find it cruel and heartless to
>knowingly
>> >subject your offspring to a high probability of life-long suffering, and
>yet
>> >it's none-of-my-goddamn-business...
>>
>> Thank you for sharing with the whole world how morally
>> superior you consider your"self" to these other people....
>
>I'm not sure how you arrive at the opinion that Jessica is
>being "superior".
Um, well, she's looking down upon the morals and/or
behavior of others. She can't very well be looking
*down* unless she considers her"self" to be higher *up*,
relativity being what it is, and all.
>Most folk, myself included, would find it
>hard to remain so objective. Perhaps by now you will have
>seen my response to Jessica about her post. How would
>you react if faced with the opportunity to advise a couple
>wanting a child but knowing they were both carriers of
>some nasty genetic malady? Wouldn't you worry about
>the child? Wouldn't you worry that, even if it skipped getting
>the disease him/herself it might still pass it on to another
>generation?
I try as much as possible to worry only about what I
can control. The rest is, as they say, beyond me.
--
The words are mine; the meaning is you.
Mean Mister Mustard
altheim <alt...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>> >Could someone tell me what I am missing? What on earth
>> >has Jabriol done to deserve such venom? Taken at face
>> >value, to this newcomer, his statement above does not
>> >sound unreasonable.
>>
>> It's called insecurity-driven "self"-righteousness building
>> via public comparison with and/or judgement of others whom
>> one deems less righteous than one's "self"....
>
>So... you don't like him. Is that because he wins arguments,
>or because he loses them?
I was referring to those behing referred to by the
"newcomer" as spewing "venom", not Jabriol.
Does Jabriol win or lose arguments? I have no idea.
I'm fascinated by how so many feel so compelled to
choose to be upset with whatever it is that Jabriol
has allegedly written. Of course, those with half a
brain know that such imbeciles are merely responding to
a reflection of them"selves", words in and of themselves
being utterly devoid of substance. My guess is that they
feel extremely insecure in/about them"selves", and thus
need someone/something they deem to be below them"selves"
as an object with which to thereby compare them"selves"
favorably.
Al Klein
alt.atheism:
>"John R. Owens" wrote:
>> Al Klein wrote:
>> > Even if the "right treatment", in Jabbers' case, is probably a
>> > lobotomy, heavy sedation and rubber walls for the rest of his life.
>> I don't think lobotomy is an option for him at this time.
>Nonsense. They're doing amazing things with microsurgery
>these days.
John's right, though. Even a SEM can't find what isn't there.
Fury
news:2kqumt8ngu6jtv4t2...@4ax.com...
> On 6 Aug 2001 12:28:15 -0400, Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> posted in
> alt.atheism:
>
> >"John R. Owens" wrote:
> >> Al Klein wrote:
> >> > Even if the "right treatment", in Jabbers' case, is probably a
> >> > lobotomy, heavy sedation and rubber walls for the rest of his life.
>
> >> I don't think lobotomy is an option for him at this time.
>
> >Nonsense. They're doing amazing things with microsurgery
> >these days.
>
> John's right, though. Even a SEM can't find what isn't there.
I'd recommend some exploratory trepanning to see if there's anything in there.
Failing that, I'd prescribe an emergency craniectomy.
Mattheq
<patj...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> Natural selection strikes again.
> >
> > Jesus, you're a heartless bastard.
>
> Agreed. Not news, though.
>
> > What the fuck's wrong with you?
>
> He's Jabs. He's been that way for quite some time. He's responsible for at
>
> least one person killing themselves, and _he's proud of it_. He through
> his daughter out to become, to quote him, 'a crack whore', and _he's
> proud of it_. He's Jabs. He's Evil.
Eeurgh. Fine, I'm offering fifty quid for his head, no questions asked.
Any takers?
Mattheq
--
"And then, one Thursday nearly two thousand years after one man had been
nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a
change..." http://www.god-emperor.com Drop in!
IA i^8, His Holiness, Pope Mattheq I Atheist, #847
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by Mattheq <mat...@argonet.co.uk>:
>In article <01HW.B78F26780...@enews.newsguy.com>, Pat James
><patj...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> >> Natural selection strikes again.
>> >
>> > Jesus, you're a heartless bastard.
>>
>> Agreed. Not news, though.
>>
>> > What the fuck's wrong with you?
>>
>> He's Jabs. He's been that way for quite some time. He's responsible for at
>>
>> least one person killing themselves, and _he's proud of it_. He through
>> his daughter out to become, to quote him, 'a crack whore', and _he's
>> proud of it_. He's Jabs. He's Evil.
>
>Eeurgh. Fine, I'm offering fifty quid for his head, no questions asked.
When you get it, put it up to your ear and you'll be able to
hear the ocean.
>Any takers?
Check with your neighborhood Jivaro tribe; I'll bet they
could shrink it to the size of a pea.
--
(Note followups, if any)
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness
to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt."
--H. L. Mencken
altheim
>
> >> >Could someone tell me what I am missing? What on earth
> >> >has Jabriol done to deserve such venom? Taken at face
> >> >value, to this newcomer, his statement above does not
> >> >sound unreasonable.
> >>
> >> It's called insecurity-driven "self"-righteousness building
> >> via public comparison with and/or judgement of others whom
> >> one deems less righteous than one's "self"....
> >
> >So... you don't like him. Is that because he wins arguments,
> >or because he loses them?
>
> I was referring to those behing referred to by the
> "newcomer" as spewing "venom", not Jabriol.
Oops! my mistake. Sorry 'bout that.
Points taken.
--
altheim
Mattheq
<nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >Eeurgh. Fine, I'm offering fifty quid for his head, no questions asked.
>
> When you get it, put it up to your ear and you'll be able to
> hear the ocean.
>
> >Any takers?
>
> Check with your neighborhood Jivaro tribe; I'll bet they
> could shrink it to the size of a pea.
And then I could get it put on my keyring!
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by Mattheq <mat...@argonet.co.uk>:
>In article <cen0nt0olvjmnutsc...@4ax.com>, Bob Casanova
><nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >Eeurgh. Fine, I'm offering fifty quid for his head, no questions asked.
>>
>> When you get it, put it up to your ear and you'll be able to
>> hear the ocean.
>>
>> >Any takers?
>>
>> Check with your neighborhood Jivaro tribe; I'll bet they
>> could shrink it to the size of a pea.
>
>
>And then I could get it put on my keyring!
<Urrrp!>
No thanks...
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>pz <p...@mac.com> wrote:
>> In article <gg80nt4958lokeqvt...@4ax.com>,
>> Al Klein <ruk...@pern.org> wrote:
>> > On 7 Aug 2001 01:32:11 -0400, "Fury" <a...@ifyouwant.it> posted in
>> > alt.atheism:
>> > >I'd recommend some exploratory trepanning to see if there's anything in
>> > >there.
>> > >Failing that, I'd prescribe an emergency craniectomy.
>> > Don't forget to pack your chisel and rock hammer.
>> Dynamite.
>You technophiles... what's wrong with a good ol' Southern sledgehammer
>and a chain gang?
Not enough elbow room.
Ken Cox
> Mattheq <mat...@argonet.co.uk>:
> >Eeurgh. Fine, I'm offering fifty quid for his head, no questions asked.
> could shrink it to the size of a pea.
"Shrink"?
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com>:
>Bob Casanova wrote:
>> Mattheq <mat...@argonet.co.uk>:
>> >Eeurgh. Fine, I'm offering fifty quid for his head, no questions asked.
>
>> Check with your neighborhood Jivaro tribe; I'll bet they
>> could shrink it to the size of a pea.
>
>"Shrink"?
Ummmm... Good point.
Paul Rotering
> Actually, most school kids I know wouldn't vomit in the face of
> Steven Hawking. I may not want to marry the guy, for whatever
> selfish reasons (such as hey, I like a guy who can give me a close
> hug), but as a schoolgirl, and now, I thought he'd be one *cool*
> person to know.
In any case, his wife and kids (and one grandchild) might have
someting to say about him dating a schoolgirl (or anyone else for that
matter).
RVcanuck
mother of his children) and marrying his former nurse.
Paul Rotering <rote...@amoeba.animalcules.com> wrote in message
news:87zo8i3...@amoeba.animalcules.com...