Bye bye M$-Office, welcome OO.o - and save $$$$
Richard Rasker
Well well, it seems the advantages of Open Source Software are finally
beginning to trickle through to the Larger Audience. No more 80+% profit
margins on mediocre software for a monopolist - instead, 80+% savings for
those who leave the over-expensive lock-in bandwagon, and take the simple
step towards being in control of not just their own data, but also of the
software they use ...
http://computerworld.com.sg/ShowPage.aspx?pagetype=2&articleid=2742&pubid=3&issueid=66
Please, M$ advocates, line up, and evangelize all the advantages of the
shackles of M$-Office 12 in comparison to open, unencumbered standards
and true freedom of information exchange, so that we can (again, and over
again) ridicule and laugh about what you have to say :-)
Richard Rasker
--
Linetec Translation and Technology Services
B Gruff
> Well well, it seems the advantages of Open Source Software are finally
> beginning to trickle through to the Larger Audience. No more 80+% profit
> margins on mediocre software for a monopolist
Can we just be clear on this, please?
When you say "80%+ profit margin", you mean that 80% of selling price is
profit, I believe?
i.e. a 400% mark-up?
i.e. 2,000 costs, 10,000 selling price?
Have I got that right?
From your quoted URL, this bit was (to me) most gratifying:-
"OpenOffice.org 2.0, due for release in the near future, offers the best
combination of features, openness and value available. OpenOffice.org 2.0
can be a drop-in replacement for most Microsoft Office users, can read and
write Microsoft Office file-formats along with the new OpenDocument Format
industry standard, is available on all major platforms (Win32, Linux, Mac,
Unix) and can be downloaded for zero cost."
I jest LOVE that "industry standard" bit:-)
Bill
Bill
rapskat
> http://computerworld.com.sg/ShowPage.aspx?pagetype=2&articleid=2742&pubid=3&issueid=66
>
> Please, M$ advocates, line up, and evangelize all the advantages of the
> shackles of M$-Office 12 in comparison to open, unencumbered standards
> and true freedom of information exchange, so that we can (again, and over
> again) ridicule and laugh about what you have to say :-)
What's funny is that when proposing the possibility of migrating to
better, cheaper OOo, some people are downright /hostile/ about it!
I have a customer who manages the IT Dept. for a non-profit here.
Recently, they just shelled out massive bucks to upgrade all the licenses
for M$ Office. I spoke to him about the possibility of considering
migrating to OOo, it would certainly meet all of their needs.
He didn't want to hear it at all. Stopped me before I could even tell him
about the benefits of doing so. Said he'd heard it all and blah blah
blah. So I was like fine then. The thing that irks me is that it's not
even their money that they're spending so casually, it's taxpayer's money!
It seems to me that if there is something that can do everything they need
and want and is much less costly, they have an obligation to take
advantage of it. The money that was allocated for that could have been
used to help the people that they are supposed to be helping anyway.
Instead, it's going to make the richest corporation in the world even
richer.
--
rapskat - 19:47:07 up 5:48, 1 user, load average: 0.15, 0.20, 0.26
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable
superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to
perceive with our frail and feeble mind."
-- Albert Einstein
linu...@lycos.com
typical lintard idiot. ms is not the richest corp in the world.
nobody wants to use home made software like oo because its crap. people
don't want to drive in home made cars or home made airplanes either.
people like name brand quality.
Richard Rasker
> On Wednesday 05 October 2005 00:44 Richard Rasker wrote:
>
>> Well well, it seems the advantages of Open Source Software are finally
>> beginning to trickle through to the Larger Audience. No more 80+% profit
>> margins on mediocre software for a monopolist
>
> Can we just be clear on this, please?
> When you say "80%+ profit margin", you mean that 80% of selling price is
> profit, I believe?
> i.e. a 400% mark-up?
Yup
> i.e. 2,000 costs, 10,000 selling price?
See above.
> Have I got that right?
a) do yo still have to ask?, and if so: b) where have you been for the
past dozen years or so?
> From your quoted URL, this bit was (to me) most gratifying:-
>
> "OpenOffice.org 2.0, due for release in the near future, offers the best
> combination of features, openness and value available. OpenOffice.org 2.0
> can be a drop-in replacement for most Microsoft Office users, can read and
> write Microsoft Office file-formats along with the new OpenDocument Format
> industry standard, is available on all major platforms (Win32, Linux, Mac,
> Unix) and can be downloaded for zero cost."
>
> I jest LOVE that "industry standard" bit:-)
Hey, how would you like it if your home could only use the Edison patented
DC system, while the rest of the world saw the (other) AC light?
In telegraph style:
People make documents. Period. People want to read documents. Period. They
want to be able to read the very same documents in 50 years, or 500 years.
Period. And no-one wants some greedy Mwarble$garble to make this difficult
for them - not now, and not in 500 years.
Erik Funkenbusch
OOo is getting there, but even in 2.0 is missing some very important
features, at least for me. The Table Draw tool is a deal breaker. I draw
complex tables all the time, and this tool makes my life a lot easier.
Also, the export to flash feature of Impress is not very good, though it's
getting better. I prefer to use Keynote on OSX to export to flash because
it actually exports transitions properly, though even that has some quirks.
These are things I use every day, and they save me enough time to pay for
Office and Keynote several times over.
Rick
OK. So what? Beeg Deel. Don't use it. There a millions that can use OO.o
very well.
--
Rick
Richard Rasker
[snip OO.o takes the biscuit]
> typical lintard idiot. ms is not the richest corp in the world.
>
> nobody wants to use home made software like oo because its crap. people
> don't want to drive in home made cars or home made airplanes either.
> people like name brand quality.
Yup, such as Linux(tm).
B Gruff
> Op Tue, 04 Oct 2005 17:12:11 -0700, schreef linux-sux:
>
> [snip OO.o takes the biscuit]
>
>> typical lintard idiot. ms is not the richest corp in the world.
>>
>> nobody wants to use home made software like oo because its crap. people
>> don't want to drive in home made cars or home made airplanes either.
>> people like name brand quality.
>
> Yup, such as Linux(tm).
- or at a pinch, StarOffice 8?
Bill
Blood Money
Blood Money
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 01:44:46 +0200, Richard Rasker wrote:
>
> OOo is getting there, but even in 2.0 is missing some very important
> features, at least for me.
So don't use it you fucking dumbass.
linu...@lycos.com
-: Yugo was a name brand.
Yup, such as Linux(tm).
Linønut
> typical lintard idiot. ms is not the richest corp in the world.
Does it's exact position in the rich-list matter?
> nobody wants to use home made software like oo because its crap. people
> don't want to drive in home made cars or home made airplanes either.
> people like name brand quality.
You do know that OpenOffice is basically StarOffice, which is a product
of Sun Microsystems, which is surely a quality brand name in the world of
computing products, don't you?
--
Code is community.
Linønut
> On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 01:44:46 +0200, Richard Rasker wrote:
>
> OOo is getting there, but even in 2.0 is missing some very important
> features, at least for me. The Table Draw tool is a deal breaker. I draw
> complex tables all the time, and this tool makes my life a lot easier.
>
> Also, the export to flash feature of Impress is not very good, though it's
> getting better. I prefer to use Keynote on OSX to export to flash because
> it actually exports transitions properly, though even that has some quirks.
Cool.
> These are things I use every day, and they save me enough time to pay for
> Office and Keynote several times over.
Is this an example of vendor lock-in? <evil grin>
--
Code is community.
Blood Money
That's all you could come up with?
I feel like I'm responding to a cross-eyed, drop-jawed mouth-breather
who has to wear a special helmet and a bib.
Go back to selling DeLoreans - you had a brighter future there.
Oh, and BTW...
I guess you better change your name. You're violating copyright laws.
http://www.linuxmark.org/faq.html#Dont_you_feel_you_are_discouraging_the
DFS
> Well well, it seems the advantages of Open Source Software are finally
> beginning to trickle through to the Larger Audience. No more 80+%
> profit margins on mediocre software for a monopolist - instead, 80+%
> savings for those who leave the over-expensive lock-in bandwagon, and
> take the simple step towards being in control of not just their own
> data, but also of the software they use ...
>
>
http://computerworld.com.sg/ShowPage.aspx?pagetype=2&articleid=2742&pubid=3&issueid=66
>
> Please, M$ advocates, line up, and evangelize all the advantages of
> the shackles of M$-Office 12 in comparison to open, unencumbered
> standards and true freedom of information exchange, so that we can
> (again, and over again) ridicule and laugh about what you have to say
> :-)
Yawn. Do you understand the phrase 'tilting at windmills'?
> Richard Rasker
Sinister Midget
> On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 01:44:46 +0200, Richard Rasker wrote:
>
> OOo is getting there, but even in 2.0 is missing some very important
> features, at least for me. The Table Draw tool is a deal breaker. I draw
> complex tables all the time, and this tool makes my life a lot easier.
Then use Winders. Nobody's asking you to do anything else.
Just leave the useful stuff for everybody else and go do what you need
to do, propping up the illegal antics of a failing monopoly.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you must be using Windows.
Aragorn
the following words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.advocacy...:/
> Op Tue, 04 Oct 2005 17:12:11 -0700, schreef linux-sux:
>
> [snip OO.o takes the biscuit]
>
>> typical lintard idiot. ms is not the richest corp in the world.
>>
>> nobody wants to use home made software like oo because its crap.
>> people don't want to drive in home made cars or home made airplanes
>> either. people like name brand quality.
>
> Yup, such as Linux(tm).
Actually, it's Linux®, not Linux(TM)... ;-)
--
With kind regards,
*Aragorn*
(Registered Gnu/Linux user #223157)
st...@storkyak.com
Or how 'bout Access 1.0, SQL Server 6.5, Visual Studio 4.0, MS Bob....
General Protection Fault
> Does Windows ME ring any bells?
>
> Or how 'bout Access 1.0, SQL Server 6.5, Visual Studio 4.0, MS Bob....
That's a joke, right? SQL Server 6.5 was a breakthrough. 6.0 is obscure.
--
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
2:25PM up 78 days, 2:14, 0 users, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
The Ghost In The Machine
<y...@must.be.joking.mil>
wrote
on Wed, 05 Oct 2005 19:32:48 GMT
<slrndk8ab...@braids.ertw.com>:
> On 2005-10-05, st...@storkyak.com <st...@storkyak.com> wrote:
>> Does Windows ME ring any bells?
>>
>> Or how 'bout Access 1.0, SQL Server 6.5, Visual Studio 4.0, MS Bob....
>
> That's a joke, right? SQL Server 6.5 was a breakthrough. 6.0 is obscure.
>
And here I thought SQL Server was merely broken. :-)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Erik Funkenbusch
> On 2005-10-05, Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> posted something concerning:
>> On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 01:44:46 +0200, Richard Rasker wrote:
>>
>> OOo is getting there, but even in 2.0 is missing some very important
>> features, at least for me. The Table Draw tool is a deal breaker. I draw
>> complex tables all the time, and this tool makes my life a lot easier.
>
> Then use Winders. Nobody's asking you to do anything else.
Where did I say anything about Windows? Or the Original poster about
Linux? In fact, I even mentioned that I use MacOS X for some tasks.
st...@storkyak.com
badly to the load of power readings from 50 lights pouring into it at
every 15 seconds. So I have a lot of bad feelings about that product.
I wound up using MySQL and then later Oracle and got the performance
that SQL Server 6.5 could not deliver.
The Ghost In The Machine
<st...@storkyak.com>
wrote
on 6 Oct 2005 09:10:26 -0700
<1128615026.2...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
SQL Server couldn't handle 3 rows a second? Ye gods.
Of course the standard questions apply:
[1] What hardware?
[2] Overloaded network?
[3] RAM?
[4] Dumb OS?
I'd posit [4], since SQL Server runs on Windows, but do wonder.
st...@storkyak.com
outcome was about a hundred or so rows per second rolling into it. The
problem was mostly the hardware. It was just a notebook running
Windows NT and there wasn't enough RAM to make SQL Server really happy.
Things started out swimmingly well for an hour or so and then it just
flat out died. When it died, it left the database in an unrecoverable
state. So I could understand, to a point, failing for lack of
hardware, but, the part that really frosted me was that the database
itself was hosed and that to me was a huge no no. When MySQL was
confronted with a similar situation, it simply stopped itself and
stopped accepting requests but at least it left the database intact.
General Protection Fault
You were presenting MSSQL 6.5 as an also-ran. It was not. Performance is
irrelevant.
--
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
9:35AM up 79 days, 21:24, 1 user, load averages: 0.16, 0.04, 0.01
General Protection Fault
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, General Protection Fault
><y...@must.be.joking.mil>
> wrote
> on Wed, 05 Oct 2005 19:32:48 GMT
><slrndk8ab...@braids.ertw.com>:
>> On 2005-10-05, st...@storkyak.com <st...@storkyak.com> wrote:
>>> Does Windows ME ring any bells?
>>>
>>> Or how 'bout Access 1.0, SQL Server 6.5, Visual Studio 4.0, MS Bob....
>>
>> That's a joke, right? SQL Server 6.5 was a breakthrough. 6.0 is obscure.
>>
>
> And here I thought SQL Server was merely broken. :-)
There's nothing wrong with SQL Server. Had you used it, you'd know that.
General Protection Fault
An unrecoverable state? Yeah, right. You probably had the database running
in Simple mode.
--
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
9:40AM up 79 days, 21:29, 1 user, load averages: 0.01, 0.03, 0.00
st...@storkyak.com
No, most certainly not.
The Ghost In The Machine
<slrndkd24...@braids.ertw.com>:
> On 2005-10-05, The Ghost In The Machine <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, General Protection Fault
>><y...@must.be.joking.mil>
>> wrote
>> on Wed, 05 Oct 2005 19:32:48 GMT
>><slrndk8ab...@braids.ertw.com>:
>>> On 2005-10-05, st...@storkyak.com <st...@storkyak.com> wrote:
>>>> Does Windows ME ring any bells?
>>>>
>>>> Or how 'bout Access 1.0, SQL Server 6.5, Visual Studio 4.0, MS Bob....
>>>
>>> That's a joke, right? SQL Server 6.5 was a breakthrough. 6.0 is obscure.
>>>
>>
>> And here I thought SQL Server was merely broken. :-)
>
> There's nothing wrong with SQL Server. Had you used it, you'd know that.
>
And this is why SQL Server was the choice in such large concerns
as Google and Nasdaq?
But never mind that and the Slammer worm. Microsoft needs
to get into some nice large accounts with SQL Server to
oust out that pipsqueak Oracle and that Tandem upstart,
never mind IBM's puny DB/2.
Maybe when Trusted Computing comes online business desktops
will be able to disallow records from foreign databases.
Can't be too careful with al Qaeda running around, now,
can we? ;-)
General Protection Fault
>
> No, most certainly not.
Okay, what mode did you have it in?
--
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
12:05PM up 79 days, 23:54, 1 user, load averages: 0.12, 0.03, 0.01
General Protection Fault
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, General Protection Fault
><y...@must.be.joking.mil>
> wrote
> on Fri, 07 Oct 2005 14:43:18 GMT
><slrndkd24...@braids.ertw.com>:
>> On 2005-10-05, The Ghost In The Machine <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, General Protection Fault
>>><y...@must.be.joking.mil>
>>> wrote
>>> on Wed, 05 Oct 2005 19:32:48 GMT
>>><slrndk8ab...@braids.ertw.com>:
>>>> On 2005-10-05, st...@storkyak.com <st...@storkyak.com> wrote:
>>>>> Does Windows ME ring any bells?
>>>>>
>>>>> Or how 'bout Access 1.0, SQL Server 6.5, Visual Studio 4.0, MS Bob....
>>>>
>>>> That's a joke, right? SQL Server 6.5 was a breakthrough. 6.0 is obscure.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And here I thought SQL Server was merely broken. :-)
>>
>> There's nothing wrong with SQL Server. Had you used it, you'd know that.
>>
>
> And this is why SQL Server was the choice in such large concerns
> as Google and Nasdaq?
SQL Server isn't positioned for high-volume OLTP systems.
> But never mind that and the Slammer worm. Microsoft needs
> to get into some nice large accounts with SQL Server to
> oust out that pipsqueak Oracle and that Tandem upstart,
> never mind IBM's puny DB/2.
Slammer only hurt stupid administrators (like those at Microsoft itself,
incidentally). It's like blaming Linux for someone logging in as root
with no password and dd'ing your boot drive.
> Maybe when Trusted Computing comes online business desktops
> will be able to disallow records from foreign databases.
> Can't be too careful with al Qaeda running around, now,
> can we? ;-)
What does disallowing records from foreign databases have to do with Trusted
Computing?
The Ghost In The Machine
<slrndkdaq...@braids.ertw.com>:
> On 2005-10-07, The Ghost In The Machine <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, General Protection Fault
>><y...@must.be.joking.mil>
>> wrote
>> on Fri, 07 Oct 2005 14:43:18 GMT
>><slrndkd24...@braids.ertw.com>:
>>> On 2005-10-05, The Ghost In The Machine <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, General Protection Fault
>>>><y...@must.be.joking.mil>
>>>> wrote
>>>> on Wed, 05 Oct 2005 19:32:48 GMT
>>>><slrndk8ab...@braids.ertw.com>:
>>>>> On 2005-10-05, st...@storkyak.com <st...@storkyak.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Does Windows ME ring any bells?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or how 'bout Access 1.0, SQL Server 6.5, Visual Studio 4.0, MS Bob....
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a joke, right? SQL Server 6.5 was a breakthrough. 6.0 is obscure.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And here I thought SQL Server was merely broken. :-)
>>>
>>> There's nothing wrong with SQL Server. Had you used it, you'd know that.
>>>
>>
>> And this is why SQL Server was the choice in such large concerns
>> as Google and Nasdaq?
>
> SQL Server isn't positioned for high-volume OLTP systems.
But that's where the money is, is it not? And Microsoft
needs to at least try to get back into that market, so that
they can provide an Integrated Solution(tm) to the end
user and have everything operating Seamlessly(tm). After all,
it's not like Linux is seamless. (The seams, however, are
well-identified, high-quality, simple to work with. Programming
isn't quite like the textiles market...)
It wasn't that long ago the term "Unix Killer" was referring
to a Microsoft Windows product.
>
>> But never mind that and the Slammer worm. Microsoft needs
>> to get into some nice large accounts with SQL Server to
>> oust out that pipsqueak Oracle and that Tandem upstart,
>> never mind IBM's puny DB/2.
>
> Slammer only hurt stupid administrators (like those at
> Microsoft itself, incidentally).
Duh....
> It's like blaming Linux for someone logging in as root
> with no password and dd'ing your boot drive.
But we must be able to blame Linux for that. Haven't you
read the manual? :-) Whereas in Windows one always blames
the hardware...
>
>> Maybe when Trusted Computing comes online business desktops
>> will be able to disallow records from foreign databases.
>> Can't be too careful with al Qaeda running around, now,
>> can we? ;-)
>
> What does disallowing records from foreign databases have
> to do with Trusted Computing?
Depends on whom one is allowed to trust.
stork
> You were presenting MSSQL 6.5 as an also-ran. It was not.
MSSQL 6.5 was total crap. Get over it. It lacked the enterprise
features of the Oracle 8 it was up against, and it lacked the
performance features. There's a reason they "rewrote everything" with
SQL Server 7.
> Performance is irrelevant.
Performance is never irrelevant. We had performance targets written
into our contract.
stork
stork
That's why it sucks.
st...@storkyak.com
> And this is why SQL Server was the choice in such large concerns
> as Google and Nasdaq?
Because the GUI has an administrator. The database itself is crappy
though.
>
> But never mind that and the Slammer worm. Microsoft needs
> to get into some nice large accounts with SQL Server to
> oust out that pipsqueak Oracle and that Tandem upstart,
> never mind IBM's puny DB/2.
I've been hearing that the next version of SQL Server will be an
enterprise killer now since SQL Server 7 was supposed to smoke Oracle
and didn't. SQL Server has the pretty GUI but under Oracle 10
administration is entirely web based, for good or for bad.
>
> Maybe when Trusted Computing comes online business desktops
> will be able to disallow records from foreign databases
> Can't be too careful with al Qaeda running around, now,
> can we? ;-)
Well, Al Qaeda is looking for web developers. Might almost be an
interesting gig --- except for that all contractors are required to
blow themselves up in orphanages at the end of the gig. 1500 years of
Islam and I keep asking myself, when Islam ever been nice?
Mark Kent
st...@storkyak.com <st...@storkyak.com> espoused:
>
> Well, Al Qaeda is looking for web developers. Might almost be an
> interesting gig --- except for that all contractors are required to
> blow themselves up in orphanages at the end of the gig. 1500 years of
> Islam and I keep asking myself, when Islam ever been nice?
>
I think you'll find that Islamic people are, in the vast majority,
utterly opposed to the terrorism which has plagued both Christian and
Muslim communities for so long.
By the way, consider that the numbers that you use are of Arabic origin,
as are terms like al-gebra (recognise it?). When the catholic church
was holding europe in an iron grip with the likes of the inquisition, the
arabic countries were educating their people, and furthering knowledge.
If you've ever seen the 'classic' film El Cid, you'll see a classic
example of the twisted, western view of arabs. They're presented as
the barbarians against the enlightened christian europeans, the truth
was somewhat more the other way around.
That's not to say that everything in Islamic history is positive, it's
no more positive than any other history you might care to read, but
don't be conned by the racist propaganda we see so much of now.
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
A writer is congenitally unable to tell the truth and that is why we call
what he writes fiction.
-- William Faulkner
Kier
> begin oe_protect.scr
> st...@storkyak.com <st...@storkyak.com> espoused:
>>
>> Well, Al Qaeda is looking for web developers. Might almost be an
>> interesting gig --- except for that all contractors are required to
>> blow themselves up in orphanages at the end of the gig. 1500 years of
>> Islam and I keep asking myself, when Islam ever been nice?
>>
>
> I think you'll find that Islamic people are, in the vast majority,
> utterly opposed to the terrorism which has plagued both Christian and
> Muslim communities for so long.
I'd agree. We always hear more of the bad news than the good. Peace isn't
news, unfortunately
>
> By the way, consider that the numbers that you use are of Arabic origin,
> as are terms like al-gebra (recognise it?). When the catholic church
> was holding europe in an iron grip with the likes of the inquisition, the
> arabic countries were educating their people, and furthering knowledge.
I think they've always been pretty hot on education. They had medical
advances we couldn't dream of for many decades, possibly centuries, before
we did.
>
> If you've ever seen the 'classic' film El Cid, you'll see a classic
> example of the twisted, western view of arabs. They're presented as
> the barbarians against the enlightened christian europeans, the truth
> was somewhat more the other way around.
Saladin was a prime example of the enlightened Muslim of his time. Mind
you, I still like El Cid as a pice of entertainment. At the same time, it
would be a mistake to think the arab peoples think in the way we do.
They've been formed by their life and environment, just as we have, and
that environment has often been hostile and unforgiving.
>
> That's not to say that everything in Islamic history is positive, it's
> no more positive than any other history you might care to read, but
> don't be conned by the racist propaganda we see so much of now.
I think half the problem is the interpretation some Muslims put on the
Koran, etc. As I understand it, it has to be interpreted much more
literally than the Bible. And Christans had the Reformation, which helped
to modernise things, if only gradually.
The stupidest thing about religious hatred is that the major religions
come more or less from the same sources, and actually share many
characteristics.
--
Kier
gordon
>
> The stupidest thing about religious hatred is that the major religions
> come more or less from the same sources, and actually share many
> characteristics.
>
Christianity, Islam and Judaism actually all worship the SAME God.
Kier
Exactly. So why all the fighting? I really don't care which Deity a person
worships, so long as he leaves me be. But sometimes they just won't.
At the risk of sounding racist, I will say, I don't wish to be a Muslim,
and if I had to, would resist all attempts to force that religion on me.
Though I'm not a practising Christian, I was born into a Christian
tradition, and I would prefer to die in that tradition. But if some
citizens of the UK want to practise their religion in peace, who am I to
say they can't?
Islam had faults. So does Christianity, so does Judaism, so does every
religion. Just as each one has its good points.
--
Kier
--
Kier
st...@storkyak.com
do think it is useful to recognize that there has been a historic
struggle between Islam and Christianity that has gone for 1500 years.
The issues of that struggle of its outcome have been largely
unresolved. The last few hundred years of relative "peace" have largely
been because of total western domination of Islamic countries. And I
think that even without supporting terrorism, there are plenty of
people in Islamic countries that would like to even the score. Without
a clear end, the struggle goes on.
Islamic forces did launch from Saudi Arabia and invaded the rest of the
middle east and Africa. They consumed the former Byzantine empire.
They attacked Europe repeatedly both through Spain and the Balkans.
They picked the wrong side to be on in World War I at a time when they
were weak and the result was the breakup of the Ottomon Empire. and
current mess in the middle east today.
That's not to say that Christians are saints - most certainly not. But
I think it would be enormously erroneous to view the relationship
between Christianity and Islam through the same lenses as the former
colonial relationship between Christian nations and other countries in
Asia or Latin America.
To that end, let's call a horse and horse and see the relationship
between Christian nations and Islamic ones for what it is. Christian
nations have all the money, which Islamic nations resent. And
Christian nations have all the armies, which Islamic nations resent.
And above all, Christian nations do not want Islamic nations to have
nuclear weapons. I don't want Iran to have the atomic bomb, but what
is that says that Russia or the United States or France or the UK can
have the bomb and responsible about it but for some reason Iran could
not. To this day, I imagine, especially in the halls of power of
supposedly liberal Europe, there is a great unwritten fear that Islam
might be on the march again, and it is a lot easier to cross the
Dardanelles than it is the Atlantic.
Jerry McBride
> begin oe_protect.scr
> st...@storkyak.com <st...@storkyak.com> espoused:
>>
>> Well, Al Qaeda is looking for web developers. Might almost be an
>> interesting gig --- except for that all contractors are required to
>> blow themselves up in orphanages at the end of the gig. 1500 years of
>> Islam and I keep asking myself, when Islam ever been nice?
>>
>
> I think you'll find that Islamic people are, in the vast majority,
> utterly opposed to the terrorism which has plagued both Christian and
> Muslim communities for so long.
>
You know... after reading that, a question just popped into my mind. If so
many islamic people are utterly opposed to the terrorisim... where are
they? I've seen maybe a dozen people on TV, claiming to believe in islam
and actually speak out against terrorism. And that is just since 911. If
"the islamic masses" are so dead set against terrorism, why aren't they
more vocal on TV, radio and in news papers? Where's the ismalic
anti-terrorism rallies???
Fact is, there are none. It really makes one wonder what's going on.
> By the way, consider that the numbers that you use are of Arabic origin,
> as are terms like al-gebra (recognise it?). When the catholic church
> was holding europe in an iron grip with the likes of the inquisition, the
> arabic countries were educating their people, and furthering knowledge.
>
> If you've ever seen the 'classic' film El Cid, you'll see a classic
> example of the twisted, western view of arabs. They're presented as
> the barbarians against the enlightened christian europeans, the truth
> was somewhat more the other way around.
>
> That's not to say that everything in Islamic history is positive, it's
> no more positive than any other history you might care to read, but
> don't be conned by the racist propaganda we see so much of now.
>
Racist propaganda? Are you talking about religion or race? They are two
different things.
--
******************************************************************************
Registered Linux User Number 185956
FSF Associate Member number 2340 since 05/20/2004
Join me in chat at #linux-users on irc.freenode.net
Buy an Xbox for $149.00, run linux on it and Microsoft loses $150.00!
7:59pm up 20 days, 10:24, 1 user, load average: 0.05, 0.07, 0.08
JPB
> On 2005-10-05, st...@storkyak.com <st...@storkyak.com> wrote:
>> Does Windows ME ring any bells?
>>
>> Or how 'bout Access 1.0, SQL Server 6.5, Visual Studio 4.0, MS Bob....
>
> That's a joke, right? SQL Server 6.5 was a breakthrough. 6.0 is obscure.
>
SQL Server 6.5 might have been a "break-through" on what came before - I
couldn't say because I never used anything earlier than 6.5. SQL Server
7.0, however, was an *enormous* step forward from 6.5, and in many ways an
eminently usable database system by comparison to 6.5. More recently SQL
Server has improved again, though from what I've seen nothing like the
order of magnitude jump between 6.5 and 7.0.
--
JPB
lqu...@uku.co.uk
Jerry McBride wrote:
> Mark Kent wrote:
>
> > begin oe_protect.scr
> > st...@storkyak.com <st...@storkyak.com> espoused:
> >>
> >> Well, Al Qaeda is looking for web developers. Might almost be an
> >> interesting gig --- except for that all contractors are required to
> >> blow themselves up in orphanages at the end of the gig. 1500 years of
> >> Islam and I keep asking myself, when Islam ever been nice?
> >>
> >
> > I think you'll find that Islamic people are, in the vast majority,
> > utterly opposed to the terrorism which has plagued both Christian and
> > Muslim communities for so long.
> >
>
> You know... after reading that, a question just popped into my mind. If so
> many islamic people are utterly opposed to the terrorisim... where are
> they? I've seen maybe a dozen people on TV, claiming to believe in islam
> and actually speak out against terrorism. And that is just since 911. If
> "the islamic masses" are so dead set against terrorism, why aren't they
> more vocal on TV, radio and in news papers? Where's the ismalic
> anti-terrorism rallies???
>
> Fact is, there are none. It really makes one wonder what's going on.
There was an EXCELLENT piece written in the Boston Globe a few months
ago by Jeff Jacoby about this. Search for "Why islam is disrespected"
(name of the article) and he brings up some really, really good points.
When reading the article keep in mind that this was written right after
Newsweek printed a claim that someone flushed a copy of the Koran in a
toilet which resulted in Muslims rioting and killing several americans.
Here's a exerpt from the article:
- "No one recalled, for example, that American Catholics lashed out in
violent rampages in 1989, after photographer Andres Serrano's ''Piss
Christ" -- a photograph of a crucifix submerged in urine -- was
included in an exhibition subsidized by the National Endowment for the
Arts. Or that they rioted in 1992 when singer Sinead O'Connor,
appearing on ''Saturday Night Live," ripped up a photograph of Pope
John Paul II.
There was no reminder that Jewish communities erupted in lethal
violence in 2000, after Arabs demolished Joseph's Tomb, torching the
ancient shrine and murdering a young rabbi who tried to save a Torah.
And nobody noted that Buddhists went on a killing spree in 2001 in
response to the destruction of two priceless, 1,500-year-old statues of
Buddha by the Taliban government in Afghanistan.
...
A pro-democracy organization, calling on Muslims and Middle Easterners
to ''converge on our nation's capital for a rally against terrorism" --
and having only 50 people show up.
Yes, Islam is disrespected. That will only change when throngs of
passionate Muslims show up for rallies against terrorism, and when
rabble-rousers trying to gin up a riot over a defiled Koran can't get
the time of day."
Bob Hauck
<mcbr...@no.spam.comcast.net> wrote:
> Mark Kent wrote:
> You know... after reading that, a question just popped into my
> mind. If so many islamic people are utterly opposed to the
> terrorisim... where are they?
The same place as the Christian Fundamentalists that oppose the bombing
of abortion clinics...everywhere. But they aren't out starting a
movement and so aren't a "story" that's pre-packaged for the media.
> Where's the ismalic anti-terrorism rallies???
Where are the Christian anti-blowing-up-clinics rallies? Are you
suggesting that by not protesting all the time the mainstream Christian
churches are implicitly supporting blowing up clinics? That's exactly
what you're saying about mainstream Islam.
> Fact is, there are none. It really makes one wonder what's going on.
Yeah, makes you wonder, if you're a moron. OTOH, the US currently seems
to be hell-bent on seeing how many Muslims we can piss off per day so
your concerns might not be all that far off base in a couple of years.
You'll know when that happens, as there will be weekly flag-burnings on
TV for you to be outraged over. Those make "good TV".
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| A proud member of the reality-based community.
-| http://www.haucks.org/
Mark Kent
> do think it is useful to recognize that there has been a historic
> struggle between Islam and Christianity that has gone for 1500 years.
What happened more than a couple of hundred years ago is not really much
of an issue for most people, even what happened 50 years ago is less
than exciting. What motivates people is what happened 5 or 10 years
ago or less. The racism they find in the street on a day to day basis
is probably the most important to most people.
> The issues of that struggle of its outcome have been largely
> unresolved. The last few hundred years of relative "peace" have largely
> been because of total western domination of Islamic countries. And I
> think that even without supporting terrorism, there are plenty of
> people in Islamic countries that would like to even the score.
Just because a few people might happen to think that their region has
been badly treated for a few hundred years does not make them
terrorists, or even warmongers.
> Without
> a clear end, the struggle goes on.
You've taken a speculative point to prove a war is going on. This is
tosh, and racist tosh at that.
>
> Islamic forces did launch from Saudi Arabia and invaded the rest of the
> middle east and Africa. They consumed the former Byzantine empire.
> They attacked Europe repeatedly both through Spain and the Balkans.
This has nothing to do with disaffected British Muslim youth in Bolton
or Bradford.
> They picked the wrong side to be on in World War I
Oh for Pete's sake, half the fighting nations picked the wrong side
in WW1!
> at a time when they
> were weak and the result was the breakup of the Ottomon Empire. and
> current mess in the middle east today.
The mess in the middle east has more to do with European, especially
British, Imperial activities, and little to do with WW1 - unless
you're trying to argue that the Arabs should've been happy with being
an occupied country, and shouldn't've tried to free themselves when an
obvious opportunity presented itself?
>
> That's not to say that Christians are saints - most certainly not. But
> I think it would be enormously erroneous to view the relationship
> between Christianity and Islam through the same lenses as the former
> colonial relationship between Christian nations and other countries in
> Asia or Latin America.
Up to this point, you've been talking about regions, now you flip to
a purely religious argument. What is this "Relationship" you're talking
about, and how does it affect the matter in hand?
>
> To that end, let's call a horse and horse and see the relationship
> between Christian nations and Islamic ones for what it is. Christian
> nations have all the money, which Islamic nations resent.
So Saudi Arabia is a poor country? That's an absurd allegation. What's
more, the poorest countries in the world are in the main not Muslim ones
anyway, so I can't really see where you're going on this.
> And
> Christian nations have all the armies, which Islamic nations resent.
Haha! So every christian nation has huge standing armed forces, does
it? Again, this is absurd. There are a few countries in the world
which have large standing armed forces. I think the largest army
is probably that of China, which is most certainly not Christian, nor
is it Muslim.
> And above all, Christian nations do not want Islamic nations to have
> nuclear weapons.
Again, completely silly. There are a tiny handful of nations with
nuclear capability. One of them is Muslim, which is Pakistan.
> I don't want Iran to have the atomic bomb, but what
> is that says that Russia or the United States or France or the UK can
> have the bomb and responsible about it but for some reason Iran could
> not.
The fact that Iran is a Muslim nation is not the issue, though, is it?
I'd be very concerned about any number of African dictatorships, including
some nominally christian ones, having nuclear weapons. What about
Nigeria, say?
> To this day, I imagine, especially in the halls of power of
> supposedly liberal Europe, there is a great unwritten fear that Islam
> might be on the march again, and it is a lot easier to cross the
> Dardanelles than it is the Atlantic.
>
You just don't get this, do you? The bombers in Spain were Spanish,
the bombers in the UK were British. The bombers in Ireland have always
been Irish. Most terrorism is born and bred at home, on a diet of
the kind of racism you're using here. For anyone challenged about the
meaning of the word race, I suggest you look it up. It refers to any
grouping, eg., "race of poets". The way to avoid and prevent racism
is to start talking to people about what they're concerned about, and
to stop talking about them in a way which demonises what they believe
in or creates demonic stereotypes, as you're doing here, leading to a
build up of resentment based on, as far as I can see from your points
above same vague feelings about wars long since over.
You need to rethink your position.
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
All heiresses are beautiful.
-- John Dryden
Mark Kent
Bob Hauck <postm...@localhost.localdomain> espoused:
> On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 23:57:08 +0000, Jerry McBride
><mcbr...@no.spam.comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Mark Kent wrote:
>
>> You know... after reading that, a question just popped into my
>> mind. If so many islamic people are utterly opposed to the
>> terrorisim... where are they?
>
> The same place as the Christian Fundamentalists that oppose the bombing
> of abortion clinics...everywhere. But they aren't out starting a
> movement and so aren't a "story" that's pre-packaged for the media.
>
On the BBC's R4 Today programme each day, there's a 5 minute slot,
just coming up to 8am, where a religious figure gives a short sermon on
whatever they see fit. We have christian priests of all denominations,
rabbis, hindus, muslims and seikhs. To a man, they have /all/ roundly
condemned the terrorist actions. Utterly and completely. To imply
that they do not is wrong.
The Muslim council of Britain has also publicly condemned the terrorism.
I would also point out, however, that the position of christian churches
on the violenced in Northern Ireland has always come across as somewhat
ambivalent to me.
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Linønut
Which God? Self?
--
Code is community.
st...@storkyak.com
>of an issue for most people, even what happened 50 years ago is less
>than exciting.
That's not true at all. Do tour the American South and ask if people
forget about the Civil war. Do tour the likes of Ohio and as if people
have forgotten about Viet Nam.
>So Saudi Arabia is a poor country? That's an absurd allegation. What's
>more, the poorest countries in the world are in the main not Muslim ones
>anyway, so I can't really see where you're going on this.
Saudi Arabia IS a poor country. Yes they bring in a ton of money from
oil but that is not enough to go around and build an entire economy
around, especially when their population is booming.
>Just because a few people might happen to think that their region has
>been badly treated for a few hundred years does not make them
>terrorists, or even warmongers
No, it doesn't, but, it does make them more likely to turn a blind eye
towards terrorists when they see them. They say to themselves, "jeez,
OBL or AZ are bad guys, but they are killing westerners, so, I don't
really care."
>Up to this point, you've been talking about regions, now you flip to
>a purely religious argument. What is this "Relationship" you're talking
>about, and how does it affect the matter in hand
Red herring. I think it is a reasonable thing to say that most people
in middle eastern countries are islamic.
>Haha! So every christian nation has huge standing armed forces, does
>it? Again, this is absurd. There are a few countries in the world
>which have large standing armed forces. I think the largest army
>is probably that of China, which is most certainly not Christian, nor
>is it Muslim.
Red herring. Judge an army by not just its size, but by its equipment,
unless you seriously believe that China is a match for NATO at this
present time. The fact of the matter is that NATO, an alliance of
predominantly christian countries, is the world's foremost military
power.
>You just don't get this, do you? The bombers in Spain were Spanish,
>the bombers in the UK were British.
By birth alone and not by action. The bombers in Spain and UK were
both Islamic, no? Or did they consume a steady diet of radical Islamic
propaganda merely to throw people off.
>For anyone challenged about the meaning of the word race, I suggest you look it up
A shared group of people with similar physical characteristics. Racism
is considered bad because it prejudges a group of people by the way
they look without giving them a fair shake as to how they will act.
> demonises what they believe in or creates demonic stereotypes, as you're doing here, >leading to a build up of resentment based on
Sometimes stereotypes are justifiable. The west has been being
demonized in the islamic press now for decades on end. If you allow a
steady stream of prejudicial propaganda to take place, what will the
end result be? If Der Sturmer's islamic equivalent has been the
official state press now in the middle east for a long time, what is
the outcome going to be?
Osama Bin Laden, Zarqawi, and other leaders of the Islamic
Fundamentalist movements do not call for the destruction of bad
Americans, or bad Christians. They say that all Christians are bad,
all Americans are bad. Anyone that is not a muslim in their eyes is a
legitimate target. They have widespread support in the middle east.
Look at the level of ground support they have. Otherwise, you would
think that they would have been turned in.
If the American Southerners successfully elected KKK leader David Duke,
you might reasonably conclude that they were doing so out of some form
of prejudice. So when you see millions of islamic people cheering
9/11 or snatching up issues of newspapers that say Katrina was God's
punishment, then, what would you conclude?
st...@storkyak.com
st...@storkyak.com
ignoring their message.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/05/wosse705.xml
http://erictheunred.blogspot.com/2004/10/british-islamic-leader-signs-document.html
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/07/3867c1ca-4af6-4f7c-8fbe-be02edd99b53.html
st...@storkyak.com
And what's Islamic countries been doing for us? We've given them
nearly a trillion dollars in oil business and you would think that they
would be appreciative business partners.
:-)
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
10/08/2005
at 05:53 PM, lqu...@uku.co.uk said:
>There was an EXCELLENT piece written in the Boston Globe a few months
>ago by Jeff Jacoby about this. Search for "Why islam is
>disrespected"
Well, the fact that the people blowing up mosques are Moslems doesn't
help.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org
JEDIDIAH
> TJB replied to:
>
>> You were presenting MSSQL 6.5 as an also-ran. It was not.
>
> MSSQL 6.5 was total crap. Get over it. It lacked the enterprise
> features of the Oracle 8 it was up against, and it lacked the
> performance features. There's a reason they "rewrote everything" with
> SQL Server 7.
>
>> Performance is irrelevant.
When license costs are tied to the number of CPU's you're
throwing at the database, performance is VERY RELEVANT.
>
> Performance is never irrelevant. We had performance targets written
> into our contract.
>
--
If you are going to judge Linux based on how easy
it is to get onto a Macintosh. Let's try installing |||
MacOS X on a DELL! / | \
Mark Kent
>>of an issue for most people, even what happened 50 years ago is less
>>than exciting.
>
> That's not true at all. Do tour the American South and ask if people
> forget about the Civil war. Do tour the likes of Ohio and as if people
> have forgotten about Viet Nam.
I said /most/ people, and it's true for /most/ people. Even WW2 is
becoming a near distant memory here. Most people under the age of 35
are only vaguely aware of it.
>
>>So Saudi Arabia is a poor country? That's an absurd allegation. What's
>>more, the poorest countries in the world are in the main not Muslim ones
>>anyway, so I can't really see where you're going on this.
>
> Saudi Arabia IS a poor country.
Saudi Arabia is phenomenally rich.
> Yes they bring in a ton of money from
> oil but that is not enough to go around and build an entire economy
> around, especially when their population is booming.
eh? It would help if you did some research before you posted.
>
>>Just because a few people might happen to think that their region has
>>been badly treated for a few hundred years does not make them
>>terrorists, or even warmongers
>
> No, it doesn't, but, it does make them more likely to turn a blind eye
> towards terrorists when they see them. They say to themselves, "jeez,
> OBL or AZ are bad guys, but they are killing westerners, so, I don't
> really care."
More speculation. Again, some research and facts will get you much
further than racist speculation.
>
>>Up to this point, you've been talking about regions, now you flip to
>>a purely religious argument. What is this "Relationship" you're talking
>>about, and how does it affect the matter in hand
>
> Red herring.
As you've /very/ carefully removed what I was replying to, I take it
that you actually agree with what I've said, but are now trying to
cover it up.
> I think it is a reasonable thing to say that most people
> in middle eastern countries are islamic.
Red herring.
>
>>Haha! So every christian nation has huge standing armed forces, does
>>it? Again, this is absurd. There are a few countries in the world
>>which have large standing armed forces. I think the largest army
>>is probably that of China, which is most certainly not Christian, nor
>>is it Muslim.
>
> Judge an army by not just its size, but by its equipment,
You've changed subject again.
> unless you seriously believe that China is a match for NATO at this
> present time.
Red herring.
> The fact of the matter is that NATO, an alliance of
> predominantly christian countries, is the world's foremost military
> power.
Red herring.
You said the Red Herring about large armies, which you've removed,
of course.
>
>>You just don't get this, do you? The bombers in Spain were Spanish,
>>the bombers in the UK were British.
>
> By birth alone and not by action.
Actually, they were by law.
> The bombers in Spain and UK were
> both Islamic, no? Or did they consume a steady diet of radical Islamic
> propaganda merely to throw people off.
Most of the bombers in the UK over the last fifty years have been
christian. If I were to publish a league table, it would look something
like this:
British Christian Bombers: 250
British Muslim Bomers: 5
>
>>For anyone challenged about the meaning of the word race, I suggest you look it up
>
> A shared group of people with similar physical characteristics.
Nope, any arbitrary group of people sharing any arbitrary characteristic,
such as "The race of poets". Now, I wonder why you snipped that?
> Racism
> is considered bad because it prejudges a group of people by the way
> they look without giving them a fair shake as to how they will act.
Not necessarily about how they look. It can be any number of things.
>
>> demonises what they believe in or creates demonic stereotypes, as you're doing here,
>leading to a build up of resentment based on
>
> Sometimes stereotypes are justifiable.
No, they're not. Ever.
> The west has been being
> demonized in the islamic press now for decades on end.
That's something of a perspective thing. A free press is a very
important thing. A price of that is that people say what they
think. Clearly, you might not agree with it.
> If you allow a
> steady stream of prejudicial propaganda to take place, what will the
> end result be?
Apparently, the end result is that the west invades arabic countries,
kills several thousand people, and then wonders why there is a /huge/
increase in terrorism. The west doesn't like anyone else having a
free press, I think.
<snip red herrings>
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Either I'm dead or my watch has stopped.
-- Groucho Marx's last words
Mark Kent
<snip>
Nevertheless, you were wrong.
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Mark Kent
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> espoused:
> begin In <1128819215....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, on
> 10/08/2005
> at 05:53 PM, lqu...@uku.co.uk said:
>
>>There was an EXCELLENT piece written in the Boston Globe a few months
>>ago by Jeff Jacoby about this. Search for "Why islam is
>>disrespected"
>
> Well, the fact that the people blowing up mosques are Moslems doesn't
> help.
>
?????
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Ray Ingles
>> Saudi Arabia IS a poor country.
>
> Saudi Arabia is phenomenally rich.
It's okay, you're *both* wrong. :->
http://foi.missouri.edu/evolvingissues/fallhouseofsaud.html
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Don't try to frighten us with your closed-source ways, Lord Gates.
Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped you conjure
up more internet server market share, or given you clairvoyance
enough to find all of the bugs in Win... *cough* *gag*" - J. R. Rimmer
st...@storkyak.com
More proof that religious nonsense in the face of reality is even more
prevalent of the left wing than the right. "I believe people are a
certain way", you say, and then, when confronted with some facts, you
just say, "oh, you are wrong."
How about this fact:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004075.php
Only 33% of British Moslems want more integration with British culture.
British you say? 2/3rds of "British" moslems say they are not!
Mark Kent
>
<snip>
Of the bombs in the British Isles over the last 50 years,
the score would be something like:
Christian bombers = 200-250
Muslim bombers = 4-5
Take your racism elsewhere - you are quite simply wrong
about this. I know - I've been living here for long
enough, and have had bombs explode very near to me indeed.
Bombs planted by Christians.
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
The average income of the modern teenager is about 2 a.m.
Mark Kent
Ray Ingles <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> espoused:
> On 2005-10-11, Mark Kent <mark...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Saudi Arabia IS a poor country.
>>
>> Saudi Arabia is phenomenally rich.
>
> It's okay, you're *both* wrong. :->
>
> http://foi.missouri.edu/evolvingissues/fallhouseofsaud.html
>
I'm very aware of the instability of that country, along with many
others in that region. Didn't we leave a wonderful legacy when we
left last time?
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
st...@storkyak.com
Interesting. Here's the question, if you are so in love with Islam and
hate Christianity so much, why not live in an Islamic country?
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On 13 Oct 2005 08:24:27 -0700,
Mark points out that the vast majority of bombings in the UK have been
done by one christian group or another, not muslims, and you interpret
this as "anti-christian"? Or is it OK if the provos blow up a pub, since
they are christians?
Personally, I'd rather people didn't blow up pubs, irrespective of their
religion.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDTqs3d90bcYOAWPYRAupSAKCeFYWg2wJgEepqjZRbLX1mPUreiwCdHcLu
bp0MCcuharUraQHwR3IblFs=
=TSX/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Another cool thing about not being especially
trendy is that we are a relatively small target of the fun police.
-- Bear Graves in ASP
Mark Kent
>> Of the bombs in the British Isles over the last 50 years, the score
>> would be something like:
>>
>> Christian bombers = 200-250
>> Muslim bombers = 4-5
>>
>> Take your racism elsewhere - you are quite simply wrong about this.
>> I know - I've been living here for long enough, and have had bombs
>> explode very near to me indeed. Bombs planted by Christians.
> Ah, the anti-christian bigot
An amazing claim - your proof would be?
> is calling someone else a racist.
I'm only calling a racist a racist.
> Interesting.
Becoming deeply boring, I think.
> Here's the question, if you are so in love with Islam
Your proof for this amazing assertion would be?
> and
> hate Christianity so much,
and your proof for this would be?
> why not live in an Islamic country?
>
I'm very happy where I am, thanks, although it could be interesting to
live in an Islamic country. I'm very fortunate in that I've been able
to travel the world for many years for my work. You should try it -
it could help you handle your racism.
Mark Kent
Jim Richardson <war...@eskimo.com> espoused:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 13 Oct 2005 08:24:27 -0700,
> st...@storkyak.com <st...@storkyak.com> wrote:
>> Ah, the anti-christian bigot is calling someone else a racist.
>> Interesting. Here's the question, if you are so in love with Islam and
>> hate Christianity so much, why not live in an Islamic country?
>>
>
>
> Mark points out that the vast majority of bombings in the UK have been
> done by one christian group or another, not muslims, and you interpret
> this as "anti-christian"? Or is it OK if the provos blow up a pub, since
> they are christians?
>
> Personally, I'd rather people didn't blow up pubs, irrespective of their
> religion.
>
Precisely!
st...@storkyak.com
You always talk "we this" and "we that". Why can't the Islamic nations
and the people of the third world do anything for themselves.
It's not the fault of the United States that the third world cannot get
its act together. Stupid is as stupid does.
John Bailo
Since China and India are rapidly becoming the worlds weathiest nations
-- one has to ask what "Third World" means any more.
st...@storkyak.com
Any why so?
The essence of Mark's rhetorical attack is to essentially trot out the
age old liberal argument that Christians are the enemy of mankind
because look at what they did to the colonies. I am arguing that that
argument does not apply any more and does not work any more. Most
nations of the world have been self determinant for at least 50 years
and thus should accept the brunt of the responsibility for their
failures, and not some western strawmen. Orwell shot the elephant.
Get over it.
Maybe in the turn of the last century, when the British Empire really
did rule over what would become the third world, it was reasonable to
look at non-christian cultures as victims in need of liberation as a
short term aid to decolonialization (and subsequent American economic
expansion). But that's just not the way the world is today, and Mark
is just not seeing it. Nothing against the guy. He's just wrong.
Mark Kent
What are you referring to?
>
> You always talk "we this" and "we that".
The "we" was Britain. You weren't included in that, and I wasn't replying
to you.
> Why can't the Islamic nations
> and the people of the third world do anything for themselves.
What makes you think that they don't?
>
> It's not the fault of the United States that the third world cannot get
> its act together.
Together with what?
> Stupid is as stupid does.
>
Meaning?
Kier
> Spare the liberal whining.
>
> You always talk "we this" and "we that". Why can't the Islamic nations
> and the people of the third world do anything for themselves.
In many cases, extreme poverty and long wars, with droughts and floods and
various other natural hazards that they don't have the resources to
overcome.
--
Kier
DFS
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 14:46:56 -0700, stork wrote:
>
>> Spare the liberal whining.
>>
>> You always talk "we this" and "we that". Why can't the Islamic
>> nations and the people of the third world do anything for themselves.
Of course the answer is they're inferior, in a variety of ways that keep
them from developing stable, productive societies.
> In many cases, extreme poverty and long wars, with droughts and
> floods and various other natural hazards that they don't have the
> resources to overcome.
Huh? The White man overcame all such obstacles, and conquered the planet.
Example: I went on vacation to Alaska earlier this month, and when you see
and experience that cold, rugged (incredibly beautiful) land and you see
films about the early Americans that explored it and mapped it and mined it
and developed it, and then you contrast that with the stupid, stinking, lazy
ass New Orleans negroid idiots shooting at cops and looting and standing
around begging and blaming the White man ---- well then you just get f*cking
furious.
At least you should. I know you'll have excuses for them.
John Bailo
>
> Of course the answer is they're inferior, in a variety of ways that keep
> them from developing stable, productive societies.
http://www.soc.qc.edu/Maps/bevie.html
"A RISING BLACK MIDDLE CLASS
While walking around the mid-town area, you will see many well dressed
African-Americans going to and from their jobs, going out to lunch,
frequenting coffee bars, book stores, department stores, and boutiques.
Though working in Manhattan, many will take the subway back to Queens,
the borough that Archie Bunker made famous. Nestled in Southeast Queens
and continuing on into Brentwood in Nassau County, and up in the
Northeast Bronx and on into Mount Vernon in Westchester County are vast
areas of middle class housing, which are predominantly black and far
removed both physically and socially from blighted urban areas.
In Queens, in fact, black households have a *higher* *income* than white
households. This fact, based upon the 1990 census, caused quite a storm
of interest, when it was reported on page one of the New York Times.
Many New Yorkers refused to believe it; others assumed that it must be
due to the success of Carribbean born blacks, especially those from
Jamaica, the island of Colin Powell’s ancestors. In fact, black
immigrants do make slightly more than native born blacks in Queens, but
white immigrants make more than their native white counterpart."
DFS
Why did you quote me statistics about blacks living in White countries,
where they're given opportunities they can't create for themselves? Where's
your stats on successful African countries?
John Bailo
> Why did you quote me statistics about blacks living in White countries,
> where they're given opportunities they can't create for themselves? Where's
> your stats on successful African countries?
>
>
John Bailo
>
> Why did you quote me statistics about blacks living in White countries,
> where they're given opportunities they can't create for themselves? Where's
> your stats on successful African countries?
>
>
First of all, America is fast becoming a "majority of minorites". There
are already several states where this is the case.
Second, you're logic is all wrong.
If I can show that in a country, outside of Africa, that blacks can
achieve a higer income level than whites -- in NYC for example as my
article showed ( and there are several other counties where this is the
case ) then the data seem to say something like "Africa is a terrible
place to make a living in; for whatever reason. But, a black person
who leaves Africa, can do quite well". For the majority of the age of
industrialization, Africa was composed of colonies and used for raw
materials at the expense of building infrastracture. So, it was short
sighted white rule that left it in the state its in.
DFS
> DFS wrote:
>
>>
>> Why did you quote me statistics about blacks living in White
>> countries, where they're given opportunities they can't create for
>> themselves? Where's your stats on successful African countries?
>>
>>
>
> First of all, America is fast becoming a "majority of minorites".
> There are already several states where this is the case.
So? It's not like the little Mehicans that overrun Texas and California
and, more and more, Georgia, can make a living in their own inferior
country, or here working for themselves. They depend on Whites for their
livelihoods.
> Second, you're logic is all wrong.
No it's not, but your spelling is.
> If I can show that in a country, outside of Africa, that blacks can
> achieve a higer income level than whites -- in NYC for example as my
> article showed ( and there are several other counties where this is
> the case ) then the data seem to say something like "Africa is a
> terrible place to make a living in; for whatever reason.
I see you lack the courage of your convictions to state those reasons.
> But, a black person who leaves Africa, can do quite well".
OK. But why do they have to leave Africa to do well?
> For the majority of the age of industrialization, Africa was composed of
> colonies and used for raw materials at the expense of building
> infrastracture. So, it was short sighted white rule that left it in
> the state its in.
How long is that excuse going to last? It's bullshit, anyway: the best
condition Africa was ever in was under White rule.
They can't rule themselves, that's for sure. It's taken Robert Mugape less
than a decade to *ruin* Zimbabwe, which under White rule was one of the
richest southern African countries.
st...@storkyak.com
to build up poor countries, it's capitalism, that is, people in those
countries delivering real goods and services for a profit.
Mark Kent
>
> Any why so?
>
> The essence of Mark's rhetorical attack is to essentially trot out the
> age old liberal argument that Christians are the enemy of mankind
<snip>
I'm merely pointing out that of the bombs in the UK over the last 50
years or so, hundreds of them were planted by hundreds of christians,
whereas 4 or 5 were by 4 or 5 muslims.
This is /not/ an attack, it's a fact! The attacks which have been
going on here have been mainly christians bombing mainly christians.
If you don't like the facts, well, tough.
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
How can you do 'New Math' problems with an 'Old Math' mind?
-- Charles Schulz
Mark Kent
> to build up poor countries, it's capitalism, that is, people in those
> countries delivering real goods and services for a profit.
>
Where do you get these phrases from? This one doesn't make any more
sense than your last couple. You seem to be having an argument with
yourself here, although your utter laziness in quoting might not be
helping.
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
st...@storkyak.com
up for christians in your mind is a racist, therefor, you are a bigot.
That's my point. I give you facts, you come back, with your narrow
minded dogma, again, the hallmark of bigotry.
If you call me a racist again and I see you in person, I'm probably
going to beat you over the head with a lead pipe until it is squishy.
st...@storkyak.com
> An amazing claim - your proof would be?
>Your proof for this amazing assertion would be?
>and your proof for this would be?
You admitted it.
"It's taken me many years to understand that church and religion are,
in
fact, not the same thing. I wouldn't even go /inside/ a church for
pushing 20 years! I'm not so fervent in this area now, and can see
that
things are rather more complex on an individual basis than I'd
previously
thought. I used to think that anyone who was religious was someone
who'd
been 'mugged' by the 'church' as a corrupt and unpleasant organisation.
So if I'm complaining about religion, you know why!"
John Bailo
There are already several states where this is the case.
>
> So? It's not like the little Mehicans that overrun Texas and California
> and, more and more, Georgia, can make a living in their own inferior
> country, or here working for themselves. They depend on Whites for their
> livelihoods.
But America is no longer a 'white' country. I just told you that at least
four states, including the largest, California and Texas, are rapidly
becoming non-white or having a white minority. Therefore it is the US,
which has a black Secretary of State, which is governed by blacks and
mexicans as well as whites and which is providing jobs.
Let me challenge you. Take your white ass over to some European country,
with tight restrictions on immigration and jobs, and see how fast you could
"succeed" there.
> OK. But why do they have to leave Africa to do well?
Dude...where did you think you came from? I didn't hear about no white
Apaches roaming the plains in the 1700's !
> They can't rule themselves, that's for sure. It's taken Robert Mugape
> less than a decade to *ruin* Zimbabwe, which under White rule was one of
> the richest southern African countries.
And so one asks: where are they now?
--
360 updated 10/5
http://360.yahoo.com/manfrommars_43
Kier
You're disgusting. Peddle your racist views elsewhere.
--
Kier
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 07:11:16 +0100,
Mark Kent <mark...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
> begin oe_protect.scr
> st...@storkyak.com <st...@storkyak.com> espoused:
>> Bingo. It's not massive handouts from some titular United Nations fund
>> to build up poor countries, it's capitalism, that is, people in those
>> countries delivering real goods and services for a profit.
>>
>
> Where do you get these phrases from? This one doesn't make any more
> sense than your last couple. You seem to be having an argument with
> yourself here, although your utter laziness in quoting might not be
> helping.
>
The heavens know that I disagree with Mark on several salient issues,
but it's starting to look like "stork" is simple trolling.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDT3ehd90bcYOAWPYRAjNiAJ9ZGO6HFoYBEgVT/oS6EceVk8OttACdFqyh
3e4g+RW2N4AWS2/XQRAc6xc=
=KYTG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"Remember, half-measures can be very effective if all you deal with are
half-wits."
--Chris Klein
Mark Kent
> up for christians in your mind is a racist, therefor, you are a bigot.
> That's my point. I give you facts, you come back, with your narrow
> minded dogma, again, the hallmark of bigotry.
Please provide some evidence to show where I've been anti-christian
and a bigot.
>
> If you call me a racist again and I see you in person, I'm probably
> going to beat you over the head with a lead pipe until it is squishy.
>
Ah, so not only are you a racist, but you're threatening violence as
well. Are you a member of a terrorist organisation? We have many
christian terrorists here in the British Isles, are you one of them?
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Mark Kent
>
>> An amazing claim - your proof would be?
>>Your proof for this amazing assertion would be?
>>and your proof for this would be?
>
> You admitted it.
I did not.
>
> "It's taken me many years to understand that church and religion are,
> in
> fact, not the same thing. I wouldn't even go /inside/ a church for
> pushing 20 years! I'm not so fervent in this area now, and can see
> that
> things are rather more complex on an individual basis than I'd
> previously
> thought. I used to think that anyone who was religious was someone
> who'd
> been 'mugged' by the 'church' as a corrupt and unpleasant organisation.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I was talking about the corruption in the church. For example, what about
all the child molestors in the Catholic Church in the USA and elsewhere,
for example the Spanish Inquisition, for example the situation in Northern
Ireland, and so on.
>
> So if I'm complaining about religion, you know why!"
>
I've admitted what? I was talking about the church there, not about
religion. You'll notice that I did not mention any religion, be it
christianity or otherwise.
Please provide some proof that I'm a bigot or in any way anti-christian.
You are, however, a racist.
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Mark Kent
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 07:11:16 +0100,
> Mark Kent <mark...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> begin oe_protect.scr
>> st...@storkyak.com <st...@storkyak.com> espoused:
>>> Bingo. It's not massive handouts from some titular United Nations fund
>>> to build up poor countries, it's capitalism, that is, people in those
>>> countries delivering real goods and services for a profit.
>>>
>>
>> Where do you get these phrases from? This one doesn't make any more
>> sense than your last couple. You seem to be having an argument with
>> yourself here, although your utter laziness in quoting might not be
>> helping.
>>
>
>
> The heavens know that I disagree with Mark on several salient issues,
> but it's starting to look like "stork" is simple trolling.
>
I agree. He's now threatening me with violence :-) I hate racists,
so many of them seem to be violent, too.
I'll give him a tiny bit more rope, but he's really close to the
kfile now.
stork
Just because some good old Irish priest fondled your parts as a child
doesn't give you the right to hate the church any more than being beat
up a black guy gives you the right to hate black people.
st...@storkyak.com
>and a bigot
Provide any evidence to prove that your not! You have quite a volume
of work to the contrary. Oh sure its couched in calm and cool and
rational tones, but I can see right through that. All that higher than
the mountain stoicly written look how cool I am fooling them all crap.
You previously admitted that you hated churches and religions for
twenty years because of a bad priest. But you say you are "reformed"
from hating anyone who is religious. That's like Jesse Helms saying he
likes black people. Saw a movie with Denzel Washington in it and now
he's cured. But he still wouldn't let his daughter date one because
its different. Yeah, that's something.
Come on.
Whenever someone says anything about anything you jump in out of the
blue to argue that Christianity is worse, and you are always quick with
a fact to argue that everyone is innocent in non-christian nations, and
everyone is evil in christian nations. Be it the affairs in Ireland,
the Middle East, or even a pot of daisies infested with weeds in your
backyard, you have it in your mind that Christianity is to blame.
Still resentful of your ill teenage experience in the Church, you try
and work in every little sneaking shot at Christianity you can.
I'll bet you can't read a crime story in the newspaper without asking
yourself if a christian did it. I'll bet you can't interpret any world
event without finding christianity somewhere to blame. And I bet, most
of all, that you would be a lot less likely to vote for an openly
prolestyzing and preaching christian than I would be to vote for an
openly liberal nutcase.
Here's the difference. I went to religious schools, and I saw that it
was a bunch of crap being shoved down my throat. Then I went to
public schools, and they had their crap being shoved down my throat.
And unlike you who leaps at anything non-christian assuming that only
christians are crap shovers, I've come to realize that everyone has
some polarizing ideology that they are trying to sell. Being in
church, hanging with a bunch of save the planet people, Free Republic,
Eschaton, Jesus Sites vs the Sierra Club Sites, it's all just marketing
and brand identity for a class of people that essentially do nothing
more than sell ideas. Worship the planet, the earth, everyone has
something that they believe in religiously and really the only people
that are truly, truly dangerous, are those that are so blinded that
they don't even admit to themselves that they are just playing the game
the way everyone else does.
Look out! There's a Christian under your bed! Kick him in the head
before he tries to convert you. Oooh Christian cooties, you've been
infected.... what will you do? How many times will you have to wash
yourself. Jesus Jesus Jesus.
Doesn't it make you sick that the + sign looks kinda a crucifix? I'll
bet if you squint, you can the little Jesus on it. But you can avoid
that. From now on, you'll just have to start typing plus, rather than
+.
>Ah, so not only are you a racist, but you're threatening violence as
>well.
I only suggested violence because you are slandering me. I mean, if
you go around calling someone something they are not, in real life, you
should rightfully expect to get socked. Same with the online world.
Deal with it.
>Are you a member of a terrorist organisation?
You aren't morally superior because your rejection of religion. It's
just a game. I might get pissed and want to blast the middle east off
the face of the earth with holy nuclear fire, but at the same time I
could easily see myself hanging in a mosque sometime and having some
decent food and hearing stories about Babars and Saladin when this war
is over. In fact, I've done so. They don't drink but at least the
pot's good. People like you are a thousand times more dangerous than
I'll ever be.
> We have many
>christian terrorists here in the British Isles, are you one of them?
See, there you go again. You have to get in another shot. By the way,
the old religious argument is a strawman for the Irish troubles. The
English and the Irish were fighting long before St. Patrick walked onto
the scene. It's about who owns the land more than anything else.
By the way, go ahead and killfile me. I defy you to do so. It will
make it easier for me to rebut all of your bigotry whereever it stands.
In fact I may just write a bot to do it.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++ for Jesus.
And I haven't been to church in twenty years!
Oh my gosh, if you write in C++, that's obviously a christian message.
That's two jesuses coming at you right there. You should probably
switch to Java. Although in C# you can actually write out plus instead
of +, so, that might be more to your style. Lucky for you there is a
Mono out there so you can at least stick with Linux.
Don't have to deal with anything by that Catholic Bill Gates. Wow,
Bill Gates is Catholic? Is that why you use Linux?
Mark Kent
stork <tban...@mightyware.com> espoused:
> Don't go around calling me a racist
If you don't act in a racist way, then I won't. Whilst you do,
then I will.
> to cover for your own bigotry.
Proof, please.
> Just because some good old Irish priest fondled your parts as a child
> doesn't give you the right to hate the church any more than being beat
> up a black guy gives you the right to hate black people.
>
I don't hate the church. I used to, but I don't and haven't done for
a very long time. It wasn't any particular church, either, I'm not
and never have been in any way a bigot, as you clearly are. It wasn't
because of anything which happened to me as you are suggesting, but as
I said before, because of much wider corruption issues, many of which
date back centuries. It was a long time before I realised that this
kind of corruption is commonplace in all structures, but I did realise
it in the end. I also posted to that effect, and you quoted the post,
although it failed to show, as you intended, that I'm anti-christian
or pro-Islam or any other of your wild assertions.
Your unsupported assertions, dreadful remarks about muslim people in
the UK and elsewhere, and now your remarks concerning Irish priests
which are also completely and utterly unfounded show you to be a deeply
disturbed person from where I'm sitting.
As I've said many times, the majority of bombs planted in the UK, by
a huge margin, have been by christians of one denomination or another.
Very few have been by Muslims.
Kindly take your racism elsewhere - it's not welcome here.
Mark Kent
>>and a bigot
>
> Provide any evidence to prove that your not!
No, that's not the way it works. You have demonstrated yourself
to be racism, making all kinds of anti-muslim remarks. I have
merely pointed out facts.
You keep claiming that I'm anti-christian, well, provide some
proof or shut up.
You're about 1/2mm away from the killfile now, in all honesty,
it's only because you appear to be advocating linux that you're
not there already. You'll note that Jim also indicated he
thought you were trolling, so it's not just me. Sort your
act out, please.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 11:46:22 +0100,
Mark Kent <mark...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
> begin oe_protect.scr
> st...@storkyak.com <st...@storkyak.com> espoused:
>> I'm not a racist. You are an anti-christian bigot. Anyone that sticks
>> up for christians in your mind is a racist, therefor, you are a bigot.
>> That's my point. I give you facts, you come back, with your narrow
>> minded dogma, again, the hallmark of bigotry.
>
> Please provide some evidence to show where I've been anti-christian
> and a bigot.
>
>
>>
>> If you call me a racist again and I see you in person, I'm probably
>> going to beat you over the head with a lead pipe until it is squishy.
>>
>
> Ah, so not only are you a racist, but you're threatening violence as
> well. Are you a member of a terrorist organisation? We have many
> christian terrorists here in the British Isles, are you one of them?
>
>
If he wants to try that here, I'll be glad to demonstrate why showing
up to a gunfight, with a lead pipe, is a poor survival choice.
But it's pretty obvious that he's all bluster,
If he wants to try that here, I'll be glad to demonstrate why showing
up to a gunfight, with a lead pipe, is a poor survival choice.
But it's pretty obvious that he's all bluster. He and DFS should get
along like a house on fire.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDT/4Rd90bcYOAWPYRAqsCAKCd7Ic1UkvrbBzvFAr3mQxHivO/sgCguK2m
qlaUayiHNRHQeAVZXwN/FSY=
=VkpV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Honesty may be the best policy, but insanity is a better defense.
st...@storkyak.com
and claim that you are not a bigot. I point out that historically
islam has tried to take over the world and has, which is a historical
fact, and you call me a racist? You are living a double standard,
which, makes you a bigot. It's really cut and dry.
And again, go right and killfile me. Because, that way, you won't see
when I rebut your bigotted remarks.
The only ones who needs to clean up his act is you.
st...@storkyak.com
I've trolled before, I've trolled now, and I will troll again, and
after twenty years of trolling I know the kind of fish I catch.
>I don't hate the church. I used to, but I don't and haven't done for
>a very long time. It wasn't any particular church, either, I'm not
>and never have been in any way a bigot, as you clearly are.
You said that you thought that people who went to church were deluded
or stupid or scammed. Therefor, you are a bigot. That's about a clear
cut argument for bigotry as there ever was. And, you still are. Like,
why else would you even spend so much time jumping over one sentence,
my own little troll, in a Linux discussion. I threw that out there
because I am Linux advocate, having been a longtime Windows fanboy, and
I wanted to see what sort of people are out there working on Linux....
and I'm like, looky here, I caught a live one. I see you at the end of
rod right now, dangling with water coming off of you, the big tuna of
bigots. You jumped all over that little gem just waiting to get out
all of your anti-christian stuff....
>As I've said many times, the majority of bombs planted in the UK, by have been by christians of one denomination or another
The question is, why. What point are you trying to make with that?
And, what points are you trying to make when you point out the
corruption, the historical faults, that they tried to make you a
racist, you've pointed out all of these things about churches, and,
what's the point of that? If that is merely a matter of the historical
record, as you say, then what would similarly be wrong with pointing
out similar things about islam or any other faith.?
The fact that you give Islam a pass while holding Christianity to the
coals is what makes you a bigot. You have it in your head: "muslims
good, christians bad", and that sweeping mental association and a
different sense of what you consider to be fair discussion proves all
the more that you are a bigot.
>Your unsupported assertions, dreadful remarks about muslim people in
>the UK and elsewhere, and now your remarks concerning Irish priests
Ah, see, I said, one Irish priest, not all of them. But I suppose in
your politically correct mind that would constitute guilt by
association. Why, you would ask, would I indicate that the priest
which molested you was Irish if not to indict Irish people?
So, let's do a little test:
Atta flew a plane into a building.
John bombed a town.
You say to yourself, "it was wrong for John to bomb the town" and "why
did Atta fly a plane into the building?" In other words, bigotry.
>nd utterly unfounded show you to be a deeply
>disturbed person from where I'm sitting
Sitting, I imagine, wondering if he could somehow use a crescent shape
to indicate addition, rather than a more crucifix shaped plus sign?
Or, are you still raging on about how In God We Trust is on American
coins?
Mark Kent
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 11:46:22 +0100,
> Mark Kent <mark...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> begin oe_protect.scr
>> st...@storkyak.com <st...@storkyak.com> espoused:
>>> I'm not a racist. You are an anti-christian bigot. Anyone that sticks
>>> up for christians in your mind is a racist, therefor, you are a bigot.
>>> That's my point. I give you facts, you come back, with your narrow
>>> minded dogma, again, the hallmark of bigotry.
>>
>> Please provide some evidence to show where I've been anti-christian
>> and a bigot.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> If you call me a racist again and I see you in person, I'm probably
>>> going to beat you over the head with a lead pipe until it is squishy.
>>>
>>
>> Ah, so not only are you a racist, but you're threatening violence as
>> well. Are you a member of a terrorist organisation? We have many
>> christian terrorists here in the British Isles, are you one of them?
>>
>>
>
>
> If he wants to try that here, I'll be glad to demonstrate why showing
> up to a gunfight, with a lead pipe, is a poor survival choice.
>
> But it's pretty obvious that he's all bluster,
>
> If he wants to try that here, I'll be glad to demonstrate why showing
> up to a gunfight, with a lead pipe, is a poor survival choice.
>
> But it's pretty obvious that he's all bluster. He and DFS should get
> along like a house on fire.
>
I'm wondering if he's not one of our regulars wearing a different hat.
What's confused me a little is he seems to have been posting some
reasonably on-topic stuff in between the racism.
Mark Kent
Show me one.
Mark Kent
>
<snip claim to trolling>
>
No proof, then.
Kindly depart, until you have some.
st...@storkyak.com
You've made the case for me, and you don't even see it.
>Kindly depart, until you have some.
I'm not going anywhere.
st...@storkyak.com
create previously unknown tensions in both of these cultures... not to
particularly have a poke at christians, but to note that when you go
around trying to re-educate societies, it usually doesn't work
In agreeing with this:
What about all the other world religions that think *they're* right &
the
"Only True Religion"?
you write:
>Worse than that, if you look carefully at christian ethos, many churchgoers
I've come across are far from christian in their morals. Church
attendance
is *not* a substitute for living by a set of values. How many
terrorists
go to church?
The rest of your politics is essentially and unimaginatively liberal.
You hate George Bush, you don't like Fox News. You like Michael Moore.
You drive a diesel car. You don't eat McDonalds. You are a bit of a
free trader, although you generally side with foreign companies
exporting to the west and never with american companies exporting to
the world. Like, you incorrectly assume that the people who purchase
baby formula in Mexico would rather breast feed. That's absurd on its
own face...
So from an overall world view, I'm making my case that you are a fairly
left wing liberal, generally speaking religous goes with that
territory, and you've made some statements hostile to christianity in
particular and religion in general....
So, looks like a religion hating liberal, quacks like one. I think we
got the duck here.
Defense rests.