jw did you write this?
Bible John
message will be removed from Groups in 6 days (Aug 14, 4:07 am).
x-no-archive: yes
On 5 Aug 2005 17:24:07 -0700, "Dave" <hor...@gmail.com> wrote:
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
>jw wrote:
>> x-no-archive: yes
>> On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 17:34:55 +0200, "Uncle Davey" <n...@jose.com>
>> wrote:
>Snip
>> >You are very aggressive in your divisiveness.
>> Allow me the freedom to disagree vehemently.
>> And I do.
>> Galatians 1.
>> If ANYONE comes preaching "another gospel" (which is indeed
>> NOT another gospel), he is anti-Christ."
>Far be it from me to agree with Davey, but you are a nasty individual;
By the way, ALL you have said in fact is,
"If you want me to llike you, John W, FORGET emulating Jesus.
If *I* -- Dave -- am going to like you, you must strive to be like ME!
>and I don't think you carry much crediblity in these groups.
And I am not in here to gain credibility. I am in here-- as stated
the first day I came in here -- to minister to those who wish to
recive MY view on scripture-- and there are some.
When BJ isn't busy "going his own way, doing his own thing" (which we
have discussed EXHAUSTIVELY in private e-mail), he comes seeking my
POV.
And then-- as frequently-- after he goes back to BJs way AGAIN, he
comes back to me repenting that he has gone back in the flesh again.
And I forgive him.
Not that any of that's any of your business. It's not.
But if BJ were going to be honest, he'd have to admit that.
jw
snip
--
John BA Church Education Ministries AS Business/IT specialist
CERM- Church Education Resource Ministries
http://johnw.freeshell.org/bible/
http://johnw.freeshell.org/bible/unbeliever_list.htm
2 Tim 4:2
AIM: Crucifyself03
Spelling and grammar errors left
in for those that
need their life fulfilled by correcting me
Bible Bob
jw,
I just noticed that archive line at the top of the post about the post
will be removed in six days. I save all posts to the f.c. group so I
can repost them for you if the need arises.
Non-commercial website where everything is free.
http://www.biblebob.net
BB
Mark K. Bilbo
into the room and exclaimed:
You know he's going to threaten to sue you now?
(Don't worry though, you can pay the invisible lawyers with invisible
money)
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
Bible Bob
>x-no-archive: yes
>If you are re-archiving all posts to the f.c group, I will have to
>rehtink posting there.
>
>I don't wish ANY of my posts to be archived.
>
>So if you are seeking my permission to
>1. archive
>2. repost
>
>you do not have it.
>
>However, thanks for bringing this to my attention.
>
>
>
>jw
>
>>
>>
>>
>>Non-commercial website where everything is free.
>>http://www.biblebob.net
>>
>>
>>BB
jw,
Don't worry I archive for my use only.
Dave
Snip
> >Don't worry I archive for my use only.
>
> For your reference ONLY is fine.
>
> However, I WOULD appreciate that no matter WHO (other
> than me, obviously) asks you for old posts of mine, the
> answer is "no."
>
> Any other purpose would violate my copy.
Gee...that's too bad.
[archived]
Dave
Snip
> And I don't want my posts archived.
Found out the hard way what happens when *that* happens, eh, porn boy?
What was that y'all were talking about a few weeks back? Something
called "Her First Time?" What was *that* about?
Bible Bob
>x-no-archive: yes
>On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 04:50:59 GMT, Bible Bob
>For your reference ONLY is fine.
>
>However, I WOULD appreciate that no matter WHO (other than me,
>obviously) asks you for old posts of mine, the answer is "no."
>
>Any other purpose would violate my copy.
>
>jw
>>
>>
>>
>>Non-commercial website where everything is free.
>>http://www.biblebob.net
>>
>>
>>BB
jw,
Agreed.
Mark K. Bilbo
room and exclaimed:
> x-no-archive: yes
> Genius!
>
> Unlike you, Mark, in spite of disagreement that BB and I have had in the
> past, it's my understanding that he is telling me he archives everything
> in the f.c group. He ASKED if he could/should repost archive MY posts.
>
> I said "no " on both counts.
>
> I don't want my posts reposted, other than as happens in the normal flow
> in here. And I don't want my posts archived.
Then you should refrain from posting to alt.atheism as I archive
everything. And I don't honor "no archive" headers...
Doc Watson
here little old new 'froup:
>
>
>Don't worry I archive for my use only.
There is nothing he or anyone else can do about archiving. As for
reposting, he is also talking through his pointed hat.
Usenet is public domain.
Doc Watson
following funny stuff in this here little old new 'froup:
>jw wrote:
>
>Snip
>
>> >Don't worry I archive for my use only.
>>
>> For your reference ONLY is fine.
>>
>> However, I WOULD appreciate that no matter WHO (other
>> than me, obviously) asks you for old posts of mine, the
>> answer is "no."
>>
>> Any other purpose would violate my copy.
>
loud guffaws!!!
>Gee...that's too bad.
>
>[archived]
Dave, there are also sites which archive everything regardless of the
no-archive command. Perhaps weatherly imagines he can sue them too!!
:o)
Dave
Yeah, well, we see lawsuit threats in newsgroups four or five times in
a slow week. The best way to make sure you can't be tracked by what
you write in a newsgroup is not to write in a newsgroup. Weatherly is
too stupid to understand that.
Bible Bob
I know but its a simple request that is easy to honor. If it brings
some happiness into his life, why not honor his request.
Doc Watson
>On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 10:53:18 -0400, Doc Watson <docwatson@yup> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 04:50:59 GMT, Bible Bob
>><biblebo...@biblebob.net> said the following funny stuff in this
>>here little old new 'froup:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Don't worry I archive for my use only.
>>
>>
>>There is nothing he or anyone else can do about archiving. As for
>>reposting, he is also talking through his pointed hat.
>>Usenet is public domain.
>
>I know but its a simple request that is easy to honor. If it brings
>some happiness into his life, why not honor his request.
>
>
>
>Non-commercial website where everything is free.
>http://www.biblebob.net
>
>
>BB
He'd bring a lot MORE honor into everyone else's lives if he simply
LEFT USENET.
Doc Watson
Indeed----- if he imagines he can dictate who can archive his garbage,
he needs to think again. There is nothing he can do about anyone
archiving the trash he posts. Many of us archive it simply because we
use it as proof against his lies when he claims 'I never said that'.
and we've proven him a liar so many times I've lost count.
galia
"Doc Watson" <docwatson@yup> wrote in message
news:oj7ff1980hebg3dl1...@4ax.com...
Elaine, did you break your mirror?
jw <jw
On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 10:53:18 -0400, Doc Watson <docwatson@yup> wrote:
YOU are one who will find out, won't you?
AGAIN, you demonstrate your PATHOLOGY by DARING me to take you to
court.
A mature, sane person would err on the side of caution.
PROVING that you are neither mature, nor sane.
jw
Dave
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 14:04:59 -0400, Doc Watson <docwatson@yup> wrote:
>
> >On 8 Aug 2005 08:10:04 -0700, "Dave" <hor...@gmail.com> said the
> >following funny stuff in this here little old new 'froup:
Snip
> >>Yeah, well, we see lawsuit threats in newsgroups four or
> >>five times in a slow week. The best way to make sure you
> >>can't be tracked by what you write in a newsgroup is not to
> >>write in a newsgroup. Weatherly is too stupid to understand that.
> >
> >Indeed----- if he imagines he can dictate who can archive
> >his garbage, he needs to think again. There is nothing he
> >can do about anyone archiving the trash he posts.
>
> My objection is NOT to you archiving my posts, you pathetic,
> pathological LIAR.
>
> My objection is to you posting my posts elsewhere, which you did, in
> OPEN violation of my copyright.
You clearly stated at least once that you did not want your posts
archived. That would indicate that you have an objection against it,
you flatulent asshole. Well, that's just too bad.
> >Many of us archive it simply because we use it as proof
> >against his lies when he claims 'I never said that'.
> >and we've proven him a liar so many times I've lost count.
>
> That is a lie, and you've repeated it enough, and I've
> corrected you enough that you now know better.
No, what Doc says is quite true, and you've never corrected anyone.
Presuming to do so and doing so are two different things.
Dave
> x-no-archive :yes
> On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 10:53:18 -0400, Doc Watson <docwatson@yup> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 04:50:59 GMT, Bible Bob
> ><biblebo...@biblebob.net> said the following funny stuff in this
> >here little old new 'froup:
> >
> >>Don't worry I archive for my use only.
> >
> >There is nothing he or anyone else can do about archiving.
> >As for reposting, he is also talking through his pointed hat.
> >Usenet is public domain.
>
> YOU are one who will find out, won't you?
>
> AGAIN, you demonstrate your PATHOLOGY by DARING me to take
> you to court.
"Ho, hum..."
> A mature, sane person would err on the side of caution.
A mature, sane person who knows what he's talking about might presume
to call the bluff of a ranting idiot like you.
> PROVING that you are neither mature, nor sane.
Wrong again.
Bible Bob
>x-no-archive: yes
>On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 15:17:00 GMT, Bible Bob
><biblebo...@biblebob.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 10:53:18 -0400, Doc Watson <docwatson@yup> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 04:50:59 GMT, Bible Bob
>>><biblebo...@biblebob.net> said the following funny stuff in this
>>>here little old new 'froup:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Don't worry I archive for my use only.
>>>
>>>
>>>There is nothing he or anyone else can do about archiving. As for
>>>reposting, he is also talking through his pointed hat.
>>>Usenet is public domain.
>>
>>I know
>
>BB, you may STILL not be aware that ANYWHERE I post with an OBVIOUS
>copyright notice, the notice itself states how it may be used.
>
>I have said IN THE COPYRIGHT notice that it is not to be used outside
>this group.
>
>Elaine has DEFIED my COPYRIGHT by posting my quotes on her web page.
>
>THAT IS ILLEGAL. I don't care WHERE on the Internet I put my posts,
>if they are COPYRIGHTED, they may not be used elsewhere.
>
>And since EVERYTHING I POST in here is copyrighted, Elaine is NOT
>legally entitled to use my posts ELSEWHERE.
>
>And the "authority" she is quoting is a "buddy of hers" who is
>misinformed.
>
>And Elaine is SO PSYCHOTIC that she will take the word of a "buddy"
>who is wrong and FLAGRANTLY break copyright law.
>
>Her position is simply, "Now! Do something about it!"
>
>
> but its a simple request that is easy to honor.
>
>Proving that she has no honor.
>
> If it brings
>>some happiness into his life, why not honor his request.
>
>See above.
>
>Elaine posted several posts to vera's web page. When Elaine began
>attacking ME, vera refused to post her hate posts.
>
>Whereupon, Elaine stopped posting, and vera removed all but one of
>Elaine's posts from her page.
>
>Elaine then began DEMANDING that vera remove ALL her posts from the
>page.
>
>Vera is now doing to Elaine what Elaine is doing to me. REFUSING to
>remove posts.
>
>Elaine thinks it's FINE for HER to break the law; but it's not ok for
>vera to do it.
>
>Elaine is a psycho.
>
>
>
>jw
>>
>>
>>
>>Non-commercial website where everything is free.
>>http://www.biblebob.net
>>
>>
>>BB
jw,
Long story short it is a simple thing for me to honor your request
::: vera :::
> On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 15:17:00 GMT, Bible Bob
>
>> On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 10:53:18 -0400, Doc Watson <docwatson@yup> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 04:50:59 GMT, Bible Bob
>>> <biblebo...@biblebob.net> said the following funny stuff in this
>>> here little old new 'froup:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Don't worry I archive for my use only.
>>>
>>>
>>> There is nothing he or anyone else can do about archiving. As for
>>> reposting, he is also talking through his pointed hat.
>>> Usenet is public domain.
>>
>> I know
>
> copyright notice, the notice itself states how it may be used.
>
> I have said IN THE COPYRIGHT notice that it is not to be used outside
> this group.
>
> Elaine has DEFIED my COPYRIGHT by posting my quotes on her web page.
>
> THAT IS ILLEGAL. I don't care WHERE on the Internet I put my posts,
> if they are COPYRIGHTED, they may not be used elsewhere.
>
> And since EVERYTHING I POST in here is copyrighted, Elaine is NOT
> legally entitled to use my posts ELSEWHERE.
>
> And the "authority" she is quoting is a "buddy of hers" who is
> misinformed.
>
> And Elaine is SO PSYCHOTIC that she will take the word of a "buddy"
> who is wrong and FLAGRANTLY break copyright law.
>
> Her position is simply, "Now! Do something about it!"
>
>
>
>
> If it brings
>> some happiness into his life, why not honor his request.
>
>
> Elaine posted several posts to vera's web page. When Elaine began
> attacking ME, vera refused to post her hate posts.
John, you misunderstood. I have NEVER posted anything by Doc on my
website. She wrote into my forum there, and into my guestbook. She did
this herself decisively - I did not do this.
>> Elaine then began DEMANDING that vera remove ALL her posts from the
>> page.
>>
>> Vera is now doing to Elaine what Elaine is doing to me. REFUSING to
>> remove posts.
Well, it was not a post, but an entry in my guest-book which she had put
there herself.
> Whereupon, Elaine stopped posting, and vera removed all but one of
> Elaine's posts from her page.
>
> Elaine then began DEMANDING that vera remove ALL her posts from the
> page.
>
> Vera is now doing to Elaine what Elaine is doing to me. REFUSING to
> remove posts.
Again - Elaine posted that herself there. It is not my duty to remove
what she wrote at all. I can, but I do not have to.
But it is different with things that I put on my website coming from
copyrighted posts. This would be illegal, of course.
> Elaine thinks it's FINE for HER to break the law; but it's not ok for
> vera to do it.
I did not break a law, John. I can hardly break a law by HER writing
something into my guestbook. That was HER OWN action, and I did nothing
there at all.
> Elaine is a psycho.
>
>
>
> jw
Peace,
::: vera :::
____________________________________________________
::::::: http://www.acc-growing-deeper.de :::::::
::::::: http://www.acc-growing-deeper.de/Israel.htm :::::::
::::::: http://www.e-sword.net :::::::
Dave
Snip
> >A mature, sane person who knows what he's talking about might
> >presume to call the bluff of a ranting idiot like you.
> >
> >> PROVING that you are neither mature, nor sane.
> >
> >Wrong again.
>
> Gee, "Dave". Daily, you sound more and more like an alter-ego
> of Elaine.
I don't know who Elain is, but I do know that few are ever likely to
confuse a ranting idiot like *you* with, well, anyone...
Scout Lady
"Doc Watson" <docwatson@yup> wrote in message
He was asking you to honor his request Elaine. Evidently BB is under the
wrong impression and thought that you are a sane Christian woman that
wouldn't want to needlessly torment a mentally ill man on the internet day
after day day after day day after day day after day. I see that yet again
you scream about what you want John to do rather than address your own
unwillingness to do anything, no matter how small, to bring some happiness
into John's life.
Scout Lady
"Doc Watson" <docwatson@yup> wrote in message
From 10 Big Myths about copyright explained by Brad Templeton
3) "If it's posted to Usenet it's in the public domain."
False. Nothing is in the public domain anymore unless the
owner explicitly puts it in the public domain(*). Explicitly,
as in you have a note from the author/owner saying, "I grant
this to the public domain." Those exact words or words very
much like them.
Some argue that posting to Usenet implicitly grants
permission to everybody to copy the posting within fairly
wide bounds, and others feel that Usenet is an automatic store and
forward network where all the thousands of copies made are
done at the command (rather than the consent) of the
poster. This is a matter of some debate, but even if the
former is true (and in this writer's opinion we should all pray
it isn't true) it simply would suggest posters are implicitly
granting permissions "for the sort of copying one might expect
when one posts to Usenet" and in no case is this a placement
of material into the public domain. Furthermore it is very
difficult for an implicit licence to supersede an explicitly
stated licence that the copier was aware of.
Note that all this assumes the poster had the right to post
the item in the first place. If the poster didn't, then all
the copies are pirate, and no implied licence or theoretical
reduction of the copyright can take place.
(*) Copyrights can expire after a long time, putting someting
into the public domain, and there are some fine points on
this issue regarder older copyright law versions. However, none
of this applies to an original article posted to USENET.
Note that granting something to the public domain is a complete
abandonment of all rights. You can't make something "PD for
non-commercial use." If your work is PD, other people can even
modify one byte and put their name on it.
Doc Watson
following funny stuff in this here little old new 'froup:
>
>I don't know who Elain is, but I do know that few are ever likely to
>confuse a ranting idiot like *you* with, well, anyone...
Morning goodly, Dave - I'm Doc (Elaine) - jw's worst nightmare. He
knows I can read him like a book, dissect him like a puzzle, and I
refuse to permit him to upset or intimidate me.
Have a good day now, ya hear? !! :o)
Scout Lady
"Doc Watson" <docwatson@yup> wrote in message
> On 9 Aug 2005 19:21:23 -0700, "Dave" <hor...@gmail.com> said the
> following funny stuff in this here little old new 'froup:
>
>>
>>I don't know who Elain is, but I do know that few are ever likely to
>>confuse a ranting idiot like *you* with, well, anyone...
>
>
> Morning goodly, Dave - I'm Doc (Elaine) - jw's worst nightmare.
You sure are a legend in your own mind Elaine.
>He
> knows I can read him like a book, dissect him like a puzzle, and I
> refuse to permit him to upset or intimidate me.
Now that's funny. Why don't you tell Dave how you don't respond to John
either!
> Have a good day now, ya hear? !! :o)
Get some help, you are as nutty as John is.
Muffin
<jw<no>@yoo.hoo> wrote:
.
>
> And now tell me, who a ranting idiot like YOU might be confused with.
>
>
> jw
President Bush?
Muffin
<jw<no>@yoo.hoo> wrote:
> Elaine, the psycho pathological/pathetic liar strikes again!
>
>
> jw
>
Is that the Living Christ in you talking
If so I think he needs to clean his mouth out with carbolic
Muffin
<jw<no>@yoo.hoo> wrote:
>
> Elaine is a psycho.
>
>
>
> jw
Thakyou Jesus for providing us with this thy servant jw, to bring
understanding through his special mission
Muffin
<jw<no>@yoo.hoo> wrote:
>
> I don't wish ANY of my posts to be archived.
>
> So if you are seeking my permission to
> 1. archive
> 2. repost
>
> you do not have it.
>
> However, thanks for bringing this to my attention.
>
>
>
> jw
>
But we have it from the other jw's
And most of the time it is impossible to say which is which
I am afarid copyright on usenet is simply not viable
(You could always leave)
Muffin
<jw<no>@yoo.hoo> wrote:
> Any other purpose would violate my copy.
>
> jw
Unlikely in that there are at least three people currently using your sig
and it would be hard to tell which is which
The others are not claiming "copyright" on their posts so none of them
seem effectively copyrighted.
I guess that is just the way it is with usenet
Muffin
<jw<no>@yoo.hoo> wrote:
> I don't want my posts reposted, other than as happens in the normal
> flow in here. And I don't want my posts archived.
>
>
> jw
:-)
Doc Watson
(Muffin) said the following funny stuff in this here little old new
'froup:
>In article <dufif1ppaq3381ni9...@4ax.com>, jw
it's okay, Red --- whenever I see certain individuals in here claim
what a so-called 'pathological liar' I am, I merely laugh, knowing
they are liars themselves.
Yes indeed- they hate to see the truth, and that's why they hate my
guts with a sordid passion.
I won't stop telling the truth, though, despite their false claims
concerning me!
Scout Lady
"Doc Watson" <docwatson@yup> wrote in message
But she is not going to respond LOL.
Mark K. Bilbo
<lrndf1hps8hcl03uf...@4ax.com> critically acclaimed author
jw wrote...
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 10:34:59 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
> <alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote:
>
>>In episode <pe3cf15o6b65b80vi...@4ax.com>, Bible Bob burst
>>into the room and exclaimed:
>>
>>> On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 05:45:03 -0700, Bible John
>>> <john.d...@x-files.gov> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Note: The author of this message requested that it not be archived.
>>>>This message will be removed from Groups in 6 days (Aug 14, 4:07 am).
>>>>
>>>>x-no-archive: yes
>>>>On 5 Aug 2005 17:24:07 -0700, "Dave" <hor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>- Hide quoted text -
>>>>- Show quoted text -
>>>>>jw wrote:
>>>>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>>>>> On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 17:34:55 +0200, "Uncle Davey" <n...@jose.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Snip
>>>>
>>>>>> >You are very aggressive in your divisiveness.
>>>>
>>>>>> Allow me the freedom to disagree vehemently.
>>>>
>>>>>> And I do.
>>>>
>>>>>> Galatians 1.
>>>>
>>>>>> If ANYONE comes preaching "another gospel" (which is indeed NOT
>>>>>> another gospel), he is anti-Christ."
>>>>
>>>>>Far be it from me to agree with Davey, but you are a nasty individual;
>>>>
>>>>By the way, ALL you have said in fact is,
>>>>
>>>>"If you want me to llike you, John W, FORGET emulating Jesus.
>>>>
>>>>If *I* -- Dave -- am going to like you, you must strive to be like ME!
>>>>
>>>>>and I don't think you carry much crediblity in these groups.
>>>>
>>>>And I am not in here to gain credibility. I am in here-- as stated the
>>>>first day I came in here -- to minister to those who wish to recive MY
>>>>view on scripture-- and there are some.
>>>>
>>>>When BJ isn't busy "going his own way, doing his own thing" (which we
>>>>have discussed EXHAUSTIVELY in private e-mail), he comes seeking my
>>>>POV.
>>>>
>>>>And then-- as frequently-- after he goes back to BJs way AGAIN, he
>>>>comes back to me repenting that he has gone back in the flesh again.
>>>>
>>>>And I forgive him.
>>>>
>>>>Not that any of that's any of your business. It's not. But if BJ were
>>>>going to be honest, he'd have to admit that.
>>>>
>>>>jw
>>>>
>>>>snip
>>>
>>> jw,
>>>
>>> I just noticed that archive line at the top of the post about the post
>>> will be removed in six days. I save all posts to the f.c. group so I
>>> can repost them for you if the need arises.
>>
>>You know he's going to threaten to sue you now?
>>
>>(Don't worry though, you can pay the invisible lawyers with invisible
>>money)
>
> Genius!
>
> Unlike you, Mark, in spite of disagreement that BB and I have had in the
> past, it's my understanding that he is telling me he archives everything
> in the f.c group. He ASKED if he could/should repost archive MY posts.
>
> I said "no " on both counts.
>
> I don't want my posts reposted, other than as happens in the normal flow
> in here. And I don't want my posts archived.
And who gives a flip what you want?
--
The Very Esteemed, Honorable, and Reverend
Monsignor Revelator and Interlocutor
Mark K. Bilbo BA, BS, MA, MBA, MS, PhD, DD,
ThD, PDQ, BYOB, ASAP, BBQ, FTD, TBA, CONTD...
::: vera :::
John, thank you - though there is no apology needed. Thanks anyway.
> I should know better than to believe one single word she ever says
> about ANYTHING.
>
> Not to beat the drum too loudly, but I have now been in here 5 years,
> and she was in here when I came in here, and she was being called "the
> liar of the baptist group even back then.
>
> Some things don't change.
>
> I was evidently rehashing false claims she made.
If she said I had published posts by her on my website, this would have
been a lie, yes.
>>>> Elaine then began DEMANDING that vera remove ALL her posts from the
>>>> page.
>>>>
>>>> Vera is now doing to Elaine what Elaine is doing to me. REFUSING
>>>> to remove posts.
>>
>> Well, it was not a post, but an entry in my guest-book which she had
>> put there herself.
>
> Here we go again. You simply regurgitate the FACT that NOTHING Elaine
> says can EVER be trusted.
>
>
>>
>>> Whereupon, Elaine stopped posting, and vera removed all but one of
>>> Elaine's posts from her page.
>>>
>>> Elaine then began DEMANDING that vera remove ALL her posts from the
>>> page.
>>>
>>> Vera is now doing to Elaine what Elaine is doing to me. REFUSING to
>>> remove posts.
>>
>> Again - Elaine posted that herself there. It is not my duty to remove
>> what she wrote at all. I can, but I do not have to.
>
> chuckle.
>
> Well, vera, SEVERAL have pointed out that since Elaine REFUSES to
> remove my copyrighted comments from HER website, you are totally
> within your rights MORALLY to refuse to remove her freely-posted
> comments from your guestbook.
But I think she must take it down if she took it from the newsgroup.
Such articles are copyrighted as far as I know.
> If you are not aware of the American expression, "Elaine has-- once
> again -- been caught with her fingers in the cookie jar!"
Bad bad Elaine. LOL
>> But it is different with things that I put on my website coming from
>> copyrighted posts. This would be illegal, of course.
>>
>>> Elaine thinks it's FINE for HER to break the law; but it's not ok
>>> for vera to do it.
>>
>> I did not break a law, John.
>
> That came out wrong, and I AGAIN apologize. I don't mean to HINT that
> you would do anything wrong.
I see - you meant she would not accept it if I broke a law, right?
> Even if she had POSTED by her request,
> to then ask / then DEMAND that you remove her posts is very
> qusetionable.
Yes, it is questionable.
> Again, we must think about the POV of the presiding judge. "Ms
> Matthews, if you didn't want those comments on vera's site, why did
> you put them there?
Indeed. :-)
> I can hardly break a law by HER writing
>> something into my guestbook.
>
> Yep. Gotcha!
Fine, my brother.
> Elaine, the psycho pathological/pathetic liar strikes again!
>
>
> And thanks for finally clearing that up.
Oh, you are welcome. :-)
I would like if Elaine could come back from her crusade. That would be
wonderful if we all just did what God wants us to do - namely love one
another.
> jw
Love ya,
Robibnikoff
"jw @yoo.hoo>" <jw<no> wrote in message
news:i54pf11lml369271d...@4ax.com...
snip
>
> Yes. I know from my studies-- including graduate studies-- in
> psychology, why hatred is so destructive! It may not hurt the person
> who is hated.
Well, of course not. You probably hate my guts and it doesn't bother me in
the least. However, it would appear that your obvious hatred towards others
exacerbates your mental illness.
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
Therion Ware
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 09:19:07 -0400 in free.christians, Robibnikoff
("Robibnikoff" <witc...@broomstick.com>) said, directing the reply
to free.christians
>
>"jw @yoo.hoo>" <jw<no> wrote in message
>news:i54pf11lml369271d...@4ax.com...
>
>snip
>>
>> Yes. I know from my studies-- including graduate studies-- in
>> psychology, why hatred is so destructive! It may not hurt the person
>> who is hated.
>
>Well, of course not. You probably hate my guts and it doesn't bother me in
>the least. However, it would appear that your obvious hatred towards others
>exacerbates your mental illness.
"10 Blessed is the man who has a sprinkling of enemies, for they shall
make him a hero".
So,since you are now a hero, Xena, ah, Robin, ah, Valeria, I know
this tower in Arenjun, Zamoria that holds a big jewel. If you've got a
big rope, I'm sure we could pull it off.
As it were. Then I'll run for the governorship of California!
Legal issues aside, betcha I could get more votes than Jason did!
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
#442. Want food NOW? Then try http://www.rtios.com/
- Yep, currently under test... Your opinion welcome.
Mark K. Bilbo
burst into the room and exclaimed:
>
>
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 09:19:07 -0400 in free.christians, Robibnikoff
> ("Robibnikoff" <witc...@broomstick.com>) said, directing the reply to
> free.christians
>
>
>
>
>>"jw @yoo.hoo>" <jw<no> wrote in message
>>news:i54pf11lml369271d...@4ax.com...
>>
>>snip
>>>
>>> Yes. I know from my studies-- including graduate studies-- in
>>> psychology, why hatred is so destructive! It may not hurt the person
>>> who is hated.
>>
>>Well, of course not. You probably hate my guts and it doesn't bother me
>>in the least. However, it would appear that your obvious hatred towards
>>others exacerbates your mental illness.
>
> "10 Blessed is the man who has a sprinkling of enemies, for they shall
> make him a hero".
>
> So,since you are now a hero, Xena, ah, Robin, ah, Valeria, I know this
> tower in Arenjun, Zamoria that holds a big jewel. If you've got a big
> rope, I'm sure we could pull it off.
>
> As it were. Then I'll run for the governorship of California!
>
> Legal issues aside, betcha I could get more votes than Jason did!
Talk about a sucker bet...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
Doc Watson
<ver...@acc-growing-deeper.de> said the following funny stuff in this
here little old new 'froup:
>
>If she said I had published posts by her on my website, this would have
>been a lie, yes.
It WAS a comment I posted into your guest book, which I NEVER denied.
I did say, however in previous posts, that I had changed my opinion
of your 'site' and wanted my entry removed. YOU refused to remove it.
Oh well- no problem. I can and WILL make it very clear from my own web
site that I in NO WAY support yours.
Doc Watson
<autod...@city-of-dis.com> said the following funny stuff in this
here little old new 'froup:
>
>"10 Blessed is the man who has a sprinkling of enemies, for they shall
>make him a hero".
But liar-johnnie has much more than merely 'a sprinkling of enemies' -
he has A LEGION of 'em.
Falcon
You tell 'er Elaine! I am sure that that put the fear of God in her knowing you
are going to use your website to bad-mouth her website!!!
Ciao,
Falcon
Therion Ware
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 13:16:31 -0400 in free.christians, Doc Watson
(Doc Watson <docwatson@yup>) said, directing the reply to
free.christians
>On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 14:42:55 +0100, Therion Ware
Yes. But I would imagine it's taken as read that the exception tests
the rule. And what a test it is!
Robibnikoff
"Therion Ware" <autod...@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:g29pf19i9tgh7ocse...@4ax.com...
>
>
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 09:19:07 -0400 in free.christians, Robibnikoff
> ("Robibnikoff" <witc...@broomstick.com>) said, directing the reply
> to free.christians
>
>
>
>>
>>"jw @yoo.hoo>" <jw<no> wrote in message
>>news:i54pf11lml369271d...@4ax.com...
snip
>>> Yes. I know from my studies-- including graduate studies-- in
>>> psychology, why hatred is so destructive! It may not hurt the person
>>> who is hated.
>>
>>Well, of course not. You probably hate my guts and it doesn't bother me
>>in
>>the least. However, it would appear that your obvious hatred towards
>>others
>>exacerbates your mental illness.
>
> "10 Blessed is the man who has a sprinkling of enemies, for they shall
> make him a hero".
Eeeeeww, now I feel like the bottom of a taxi cab! :P
> So,since you are now a hero, Xena, ah, Robin, ah, Valeria, I know
> this tower in Arenjun, Zamoria that holds a big jewel. If you've got a
> big rope, I'm sure we could pull it off.
I BEG your pardon! ;)
>
> As it were. Then I'll run for the governorship of California!
So, you'll be back? ;)
>
> Legal issues aside, betcha I could get more votes than Jason did!
Honey, the turds in my cats' litterbox could accomplish that ;)
Dave
Snip
> You forget fallus....
Were you saying something, "christian?"
> sorry, falcon.
>
> You and Elaine have one characteristic in common.
> You are both legends in your own minds.
If so, that is a characteristic that is not uncommon to certain
allegedly born-again types, as well.
Robibnikoff
"jw @yoo.hoo>" <jw<no> wrote in message
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 09:19:07 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
> <witc...@broomstick.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"jw @yoo.hoo>" <jw<no> wrote in message
>>news:i54pf11lml369271d...@4ax.com...
>>
>>snip
>>>
>>> Yes. I know from my studies-- including graduate studies-- in
>>> psychology, why hatred is so destructive! It may not hurt the person
>>> who is hated.
>>
>>Well, of course not. You probably hate my guts and it doesn't bother me
>>in
>>the least. However, it would appear that your obvious hatred towards
>>others
>>exacerbates your mental illness.
>
> emotions.
Not at all. You might want to re-read what I wrote and note the word
"probably".
>
> I don't hate you. I don't spend that much time thinking about you,
> much less that much energy. Though I DO understand why you so COVET my
> attention.
LOL. You wish. I'm just trying to get you to killfile me, but since you
obviously crave MY attention, you refuse to do so.
Robibnikoff
"jw @yoo.hoo>" <jw<no> wrote in message
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:46:12 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
> <witc...@broomstick.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Therion Ware" <autod...@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
>>news:g29pf19i9tgh7ocse...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 09:19:07 -0400 in free.christians, Robibnikoff
>>> ("Robibnikoff" <witc...@broomstick.com>) said, directing the reply
>>> to free.christians
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"jw @yoo.hoo>" <jw<no> wrote in message
>>>>news:i54pf11lml369271d...@4ax.com...
>>
>>snip
>>>>> Yes. I know from my studies-- including graduate studies-- in
>>>>> psychology, why hatred is so destructive! It may not hurt the person
>>>>> who is hated.
>>>>
>>>>Well, of course not. You probably hate my guts and it doesn't bother me
>>>>in
>>>>the least. However, it would appear that your obvious hatred towards
>>>>others
>>>>exacerbates your mental illness.
>>>
>>> "10 Blessed is the man who has a sprinkling of enemies, for they shall
>>> make him a hero".
>>
>>Eeeeeww, now I feel like the bottom of a taxi cab! :P
>
I bet you do, shit for brains. That's about your speed.
>
>
>>
>>> So,since you are now a hero, Xena, ah, Robin, ah, Valeria, I know
>>> this tower in Arenjun, Zamoria that holds a big jewel. If you've got a
>>> big rope, I'm sure we could pull it off.
>>
>>I BEG your pardon! ;)
>
> YOU? BEG ?
I take it a figure of speech is beyond you. Thanks for proving that.
<maniacal laughter snipped>
>>>
>>> As it were. Then I'll run for the governorship of California!
>>
>>So, you'll be back? ;)
>
> Does that mean YOU'll be back, too?
Does replying to my post mean you're an attention whore? Yes.
Doc Watson
following funny stuff in this here little old new 'froup:
>x-no-archive: yes
no--- archived-
and I am replying to FALCON, who is kill filed, but he crap was
flushed out of this 'message':
>>You tell 'er Elaine! I am sure that that put the fear of God in her knowing you
>>are going to use your website to bad-mouth her website!!!
>>
>>Ciao,
>>Falcon
I have no intentions of badmouthing her web site, falcon. What I DO
intend to do is simply make it CLEAR that I do NOT support her group,
and state she still refuses to remove my entry from her 'guest book'
which has not been a 'valid' (for lack of a better term here) entry
for some time now.
>
I guess you thought I wouldn't see this, huh? Pity.
Doc Watson
<witc...@broomstick.com> said the following funny stuff in this here
little old new 'froup:
>
>LOL. You wish. I'm just trying to get you to killfile me, but since you
>obviously crave MY attention, you refuse to do so.
I still maintain he doesn't kill file ANYBODY. He's too terrified of
missing anything.
Falcon
>>>You tell 'er Elaine! I am sure that that put the fear of God in her knowing you
>>>are going to use your website to bad-mouth her website!!!
>
>I have no intentions of badmouthing her web site, falcon. What I DO
>intend to do is simply make it CLEAR that I do NOT support her group,
>and state she still refuses to remove my entry from her 'guest book'
>which has not been a 'valid' (for lack of a better term here) entry
>for some time now.
>>
>I guess you thought I wouldn't see this, huh? Pity.
The only thing I am confident you will never see is your need for
help from a mental health professional. But then, I suspect it
matters little at this point since I believe you are no longer
capable of being healed nor leaving behind your idol of worship, the
hate which controls you.
--
Ciao,
Falcon
galia
"Doc Watson" <docwatson@yup> wrote in message
Wasn't Falcon supposed to be in your killfile?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 18:40:33 -0400, larry4...@adelphia.net said the
following funny stuff in this here little old new 'froup:
>>Falcon
>Elaine may be talking about this message.
>41. Greigg Aug 8, 11:06 am hide options
>Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.baptist
>From: Greigg <Grei...@nowhere.man> - Find messages by this author
>Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 11:06:04 -0400
>Local: Mon, Aug 8 2005 11:06 am
Larry-
I will not waste my time trying to explain this.
Greigg also signed my Guest Book, so let everyone run to the romath
website and see if they can possibly dig up any filth on him, right?
Certain mental cases in here may claim he is a 'sock' if it makes them
feel better; I really don't care what they think.
As for madam, I DO have her on killfile. I also killfiled falcon,
scout lady, and Paul duca.
Have a pleasant evening.
Reply
Falcon
wrote:
>
>"Doc Watson" <docwatson@yup> wrote in message
>news:vjsrf15qrksqbbstc...@4ax.com...
>| On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 22:16:50 -0700, jw <jw<no>@yoo.hoo> said the
>| following funny stuff in this here little old new 'froup:
>|
>| >x-no-archive: yes
>| no--- archived-
>| and I am replying to FALCON, who is kill filed, but he crap was
>| flushed out of this 'message':
>|
>| >>You tell 'er Elaine! I am sure that that put the fear of God in her
>knowing you
>| >>are going to use your website to bad-mouth her website!!!
>| >>
>| >>Ciao,
>| >>Falcon
>| I have no intentions of badmouthing her web site, falcon. What I DO
>| intend to do is simply make it CLEAR that I do NOT support her group,
>| and state she still refuses to remove my entry from her 'guest book'
>| which has not been a 'valid' (for lack of a better term here) entry
>| for some time now.
>| >
>| I guess you thought I wouldn't see this, huh? Pity.
>
>
>Wasn't Falcon supposed to be in your killfile?
The only real kill-file Elaine has is her own honesty, integrity and
credibility.
--
Ciao,
Falcon
Doc Watson
the following funny stuff in this here little old new 'froup:
>
>"Doc Watson" <docwatson@yup> wrote in message
>news:vjsrf15qrksqbbstc...@4ax.com...
>| On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 22:16:50 -0700, jw <jw<no>@yoo.hoo> said the
>| following funny stuff in this here little old new 'froup:
>|
>| >x-no-archive: yes
>| no--- archived-
>| and I am replying to FALCON, who is kill filed, but he crap was
>| flushed out of this 'message':
>|
>| >>You tell 'er Elaine! I am sure that that put the fear of God in her
>knowing you
>| >>are going to use your website to bad-mouth her website!!!
>| >>
>| >>Ciao,
>| >>Falcon
>| I have no intentions of badmouthing her web site, falcon. What I DO
>| intend to do is simply make it CLEAR that I do NOT support her group,
>| and state she still refuses to remove my entry from her 'guest book'
>| which has not been a 'valid' (for lack of a better term here) entry
>| for some time now.
>| >
>| I guess you thought I wouldn't see this, huh? Pity.
>
>
>Wasn't Falcon supposed to be in your killfile?
Yes, he IS, madam. I saw his diatribe through another post, which I
IDENTIFIED right from the outset. You really need to learn to
READ......
Scout Lady
"Doc Watson" <docwatson@yup> wrote in message
This is so funny coming from you!
Scout Lady
"Dave" <hor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123916930.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> jw wrote:
>
> Snip
>
>> You forget fallus....
>
> Were you saying something, "christian?"
>
::: vera :::
I wonder when you will start to act and post in the Spirit of Jesus
Christ...
May God send you wisdom and the desire to draw all the people to God,
::: vera :::
____________________________________________________
::::::: http://www.acc-growing-deeper.de :::::::
::::::: http://www.acc-growing-deeper.de/Israel.htm :::::::
::::::: http://www.e-sword.net :::::::
::: vera :::
>>
>> I'm betting vera has a similiar statement on hers.
>
No, John, I would not libel people or websites on my website the way
Elaine is planning it. I have better things to do, and I am longing to
do everything I do in the Spirit of Christ.
Poor Elaine, her hate will devour her.
May the Lord give her much wisdom for her actions.
>> heh heh!
>>
>> jwl
::: vera :::
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 03:08:11 +0200, "::: vera :::"
>
>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>> On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 23:23:04 +0200, "::: vera :::"
>>> <ver...@acc-growing-deeper.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>>>> On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 15:17:00 GMT, Bible Bob
>>>>> <biblebo...@biblebob.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 10:53:18 -0400, Doc Watson <docwatson@yup>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 04:50:59 GMT, Bible Bob
>>>>>>> <biblebo...@biblebob.net> said the following funny stuff in
>>>>>>> this here little old new 'froup:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is nothing he or anyone else can do about archiving. As
>>>>>>> for reposting, he is also talking through his pointed hat.
>>>>>>> Usenet is public domain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I know
>>>>>
>>>>> BB, you may STILL not be aware that ANYWHERE I post with an
>>>>> OBVIOUS copyright notice, the notice itself states how it may be
>>>>> used.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have said IN THE COPYRIGHT notice that it is not to be used
>>>>> outside this group.
>>>>>
>>>>> Elaine has DEFIED my COPYRIGHT by posting my quotes on her web
>>>>> page.
>>>>>
>>>>> THAT IS ILLEGAL. I don't care WHERE on the Internet I put my
>>>>> posts, if they are COPYRIGHTED, they may not be used elsewhere.
>>>>>
>>>>> And since EVERYTHING I POST in here is copyrighted, Elaine is NOT
>>>>> legally entitled to use my posts ELSEWHERE.
>>>>>
>>>>> And the "authority" she is quoting is a "buddy of hers" who is
>>>>> misinformed.
>>>>>
>>>>> And Elaine is SO PSYCHOTIC that she will take the word of a
>>>>> "buddy" who is wrong and FLAGRANTLY break copyright law.
>>>>>
>>>>> Her position is simply, "Now! Do something about it!"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> but its a simple request that is easy to honor.
>>>>>
>>>>> Proving that she has no honor.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it brings
>>>>>> some happiness into his life, why not honor his request.
>>>>>
>>>>> See above.
>>>>>
>>>>> Elaine posted several posts to vera's web page. When Elaine began
>>>>> attacking ME, vera refused to post her hate posts.
>>>>
>>>> John, you misunderstood. I have NEVER posted anything by Doc on my
>>>> website. She wrote into my forum there, and into my guestbook. She
>>>> did this herself decisively - I did not do this.
>>>
>>> My apologies.
>>
>> John, thank you - though there is no apology needed. Thanks anyway.
>>
>>> I should know better than to believe one single word she ever says
>>> about ANYTHING.
>>>
>>> Not to beat the drum too loudly, but I have now been in here 5
>>> years, and she was in here when I came in here, and she was being
>>> called "the liar of the baptist group even back then.
>>>
>>> Some things don't change.
>>>
>>> I was evidently rehashing false claims she made.
>>
>> If she said I had published posts by her on my website, this would
>> have been a lie, yes.
>>
>>>>>> the page.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Vera is now doing to Elaine what Elaine is doing to me. REFUSING
>>>>>> to remove posts.
>>>>
>>>> Well, it was not a post, but an entry in my guest-book which she
>>>> had put there herself.
>>>
>>> Here we go again. You simply regurgitate the FACT that NOTHING
>>> Elaine says can EVER be trusted.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Whereupon, Elaine stopped posting, and vera removed all but one of
>>>>> Elaine's posts from her page.
>>>>>
>>>>> Elaine then began DEMANDING that vera remove ALL her posts from
>>>>> the page.
>>>>>
>>>>> Vera is now doing to Elaine what Elaine is doing to me. REFUSING
>>>>> to remove posts.
>>>>
>>>> Again - Elaine posted that herself there. It is not my duty to
>>>> remove what she wrote at all. I can, but I do not have to.
>>>
>>> chuckle.
>>>
>>> Well, vera, SEVERAL have pointed out that since Elaine REFUSES to
>>> remove my copyrighted comments from HER website, you are totally
>>> within your rights MORALLY to refuse to remove her freely-posted
>>> comments from your guestbook.
>>
>> But I think she must take it down if she took it from the newsgroup.
>> Such articles are copyrighted as far as I know.
>>
>>> If you are not aware of the American expression, "Elaine has-- once
>>> again -- been caught with her fingers in the cookie jar!"
>>
>> Bad bad Elaine. LOL
>>
>>>> But it is different with things that I put on my website coming
>>>> from copyrighted posts. This would be illegal, of course.
>>>>
>>>>> Elaine thinks it's FINE for HER to break the law; but it's not ok
>>>>> for vera to do it.
>>>>
>>>> I did not break a law, John.
>>>
>>> That came out wrong, and I AGAIN apologize. I don't mean to HINT
>>> that you would do anything wrong.
>>
>> I see - you meant she would not accept it if I broke a law, right?
>>
>>> Even if she had POSTED by her request,
>>> to then ask / then DEMAND that you remove her posts is very
>>> qusetionable.
>>
>> Yes, it is questionable.
>>
>>> Again, we must think about the POV of the presiding judge. "Ms
>>> Matthews, if you didn't want those comments on vera's site, why did
>>> you put them there?
>>
>> Indeed. :-)
>>
>>> I can hardly break a law by HER writing
>>>> something into my guestbook.
>>>
>>> Yep. Gotcha!
>>
>> Fine, my brother.
>>
>>> Elaine, the psycho pathological/pathetic liar strikes again!
>>>
>>>
>>> And thanks for finally clearing that up.
>>
>> Oh, you are welcome. :-)
>>
>> I would like if Elaine could come back from her crusade. That would
>> be wonderful if we all just did what God wants us to do - namely
>> love one another.
>>
>
> Yes. I know from my studies-- including graduate studies-- in
> psychology, why hatred is so destructive! It may not hurt the person
> who is hated.
>
> she tries.
>
> However, the hatred she spits at me daily is DESTROYING HER.
> Ditto Jim Agar, ditto crawlsalong ( walksalone), ditto Don / Ted,
> ditto Scout, ditto Phar Lap, ditto John H, ditto galia.
>
> They only hurt themselves.
Yes, I agree in general.
> Sad.
Indeed, so do not let us stumble into the devil's trap and start hating
them on our part. It is a spiritual war, and we know who is behind it.
May the Lord
set them free soon, and may He touch them with His endless love and
Heavenly peace.
> jw
Be blessed,
::: vera :::
____________________________________________________
::::::: http://www.acc-growing-deeper.de :::::::
::::::: http://www.acc-growing-deeper.de/Israel.htm :::::::
::::::: http://www.e-sword.net :::::::
>
>>> jw
>>
>> Love ya,
>>
>> ::: vera :::
>> ____________________________________________________
>> ::::::: http://www.acc-growing-deeper.de :::::::
>> ::::::: http://www.acc-growing-deeper.de/Israel.htm :::::::
>> ::::::: http://www.e-sword.net :::::::
>>
>>> That was HER OWN action, and I did nothing
>>>> there at all.
>>>>
>>>>> Elaine is a psycho.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> jw
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Peace,
>>>>
>>>> ::: vera :::
>>>> ____________________________________________________
>>>> ::::::: http://www.acc-growing-deeper.de :::::::
>>>> ::::::: http://www.acc-growing-deeper.de/Israel.htm :::::::
>>>> ::::::: http://www.e-sword.net :::::::
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Non-commercial website where everything is free.
>>>>>> http://www.biblebob.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BB
Doc Watson
>
>No, John, I would not libel people or websites on my website the way
>Elaine is planning it.
Anther lie, madam.
I said absolutely NOTHING about supposedly libeling anyone or their
web site.
To set a matter STRAIGHT is not libel.
Muffin
<jw<no>@yoo.hoo> wrote:
> >
>
> Yes. I know from my studies-- including graduate studies-- in
> psychology, why hatred is so destructive! It may not hurt the person
> who is hated.
>
> Elaine truly can't do TOO much damage to me over the internet. Though
> she tries.
>
> However, the hatred she spits at me daily is DESTROYING HER.
> Ditto Jim Agar, ditto crawlsalong ( walksalone), ditto Don / Ted,
> ditto Scout, ditto Phar Lap, ditto John H, ditto galia.
>
> They only hurt themselves.
>
>
> Sad.
>
> jw
>
glad you realise that jw
Of course you just blew every court case of yours out of the window
But there you go - you didn't have any the judge wouldn't laugh at anyway
as you say:
" Elaine truly can't do TOO much damage to me over the internet. Though
she tries."
"Ditto Jim Agar, ditto crawlsalong ( walksalone), ditto Don / Ted,
ditto Scout, ditto Phar Lap, ditto John H, ditto galia".
Glad you realise there is nothing that could legally be defined as harm in
any of it
Kindest regards you little old demon you! Hope when the men in white
coats turn up they are nice to you and take you somewhere warm and sunny
Muffin
Muffin
<ver...@acc-growing-deeper.de> wrote:
>
> I wonder when you will start to act and post in the Spirit of Jesus
> Christ...
>
The bit with the whip perhaps?
Muffin
Hey don't waste your emotions
Sometimes you just have to laugh at the idiots
+++++++++++++++++++++
Doc Watson
(Muffin) said the following funny stuff in this here little old new
'froup:
>In article <p5hvf1581087rn69t...@4ax.com>, DOC@WATSON wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 21:13:39 +0200, "::: vera :::"
>> <ver...@acc-growing-deeper.de> said the following funny stuff in this
>> here little old new 'froup:
>>
>> >
>> >No, John, I would not libel people or websites on my website the way
>> >Elaine is planning it.
>>
>>
>> Anther lie, madam.
>> I said absolutely NOTHING about supposedly libeling anyone or their
>> web site.
>> To set a matter STRAIGHT is not libel.
>
>Hey don't waste your emotions
>
>Sometimes you just have to laugh at the idiots
>
>
>+++++++++++++++++++++
And daily I DO where old man weatherless is concerned.
He's so ridiculous, it's BEYOND my feeling sorry for him.
He's an ass ------- a pompous, ignorant, bullheaded, lying,
antagonistic, argumentative, stubborn, miserable, arrogant ASS.
Aside from that, he is NOT a nice person ...!!
::: vera :::
That is what she is demonstrating here all the time, but Jesus did not
try to chase disabled people out of the usenet, but the merchants out of
the temple:
><> ><> ><> start John 2:13-16 LITV <>< <>< <><
And the Passover of the Jews was near. And Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
And He found those selling oxen and sheep and doves in the temple, and
the money changers sitting. And making a whip out of ropes, He threw all
out of the temple, both the sheep, and the oxen, and the money changers,
pouring out the money and overturning the tables. And to the ones
selling the doves, He said, Take these things from here! Do not make My
Father's house a house of merchandise.
><> ><> ><> end John 2:13-16 LITV <>< <>< <><
I do not know why Elaine thinks she has the right to justify her private
war with God's Word. There is no base for that. John has a problem to
control himself, and it is a really severe thing to provoke him all the
time like she does. She should simply leave him in peace if she cannot
get along with him.
Peace,
Mike Andrade
news:3md02gF...@individual.net:
> John has a problem to
> control himself, and it is a really severe thing to provoke him
> all the time like she does. She should simply leave him in peace
> if she cannot get along with him.
>
Excellent advice. Now if all those who think they are "spiritual"
could simply take it instead of continually antagonizing him we would
have a good start. Of course, that would require denying the
monster.
--
Mike
You and I do not see things as they are. We see things as we are.
- Herb Cohen
::: vera :::
You will be judged by your own standards one day, and you will be judged
in comparison with Jesus.
I pass you over to His judgement.
Doc Watson
>
>I do not know why Elaine thinks she has the right to justify her private
>war with God's Word. There is no base for that. John has a problem to
>control himself, and it is a really severe thing to provoke him all the
>time like she does. She should simply leave him in peace if she cannot
>get along with him.
>
>Peace,
>
> ::: vera :::
Too gutless to say to me in your post Vera? Oh well- no problem. I'll
address it regardless.
I am not trying to chase Legion out of this group. He SHOULD have the
intel to leave it voluntarily, knowing he is INCAPABLE of rational
observation, decent conversation, and pleasantry as is normal here.
He RUINS nearly every thread he 'participates' in.
He curses others needlessly, whines continuously, lies, and falsely
accuses. Then, when confronted with his idiocy, he imagines he will
have those of us with the sense TO confront him 'hauled into the
courtroom in shackles' and 'incarcerated for a long, long time'.
He has wished ill tidings on NUMEROUS people, ALL needlessly, because
of his own disgusting behavior and attitude.
In case you missed it, I also offered a truce, which he flatly
refused, declaring "No way" and admitting he would rather keep on
fighting simply because I refused to apologize for things I did not
do.
He has falsely accused me of things...
He has falsely accused ujb of things...
He has falsely accused CB of things...
He has falsely accused Muffin of things...
He has falsely accused Don of things...
He has falsely accused SL of things...
He has falsely accused Robyn of things...
He has falsely accused galia of things...
His feeble 'excuse' is that he claimed to have apologized to everyone
for it - Balderdash...... his 'apologies are nothing, and he knows it.
He 'apologizes' one minute, then retracts it the next, as many here
have personally witnessed.
God only knows how many others he has falsely accused.
God only knows how many others he has lied to.
God only knows how many others he has manipulated as he has you and
Larry.
God only knows how many others he has threatened with 'court and
'incarceration'.
He has THREATENED physical violence as well as his ridiculous
threats concerning 'court cases' against anyone intelligent enough to
talk BACK to him and put him in his place.
So kindly don't talk down concerning me, especially behind my back,
Vera. Say it to ME if you have a gripe.
Doc Watson
>
>You will be judged by your own standards one day, and you will be judged
>in comparison with Jesus.
>
so will you.
And mollycoddling an individual with obvious maladaptive behaviors
is not doing him any favors, either, Vera. I AM doing him a favor in
pointing out his disgusting behaviors. What are YOU doing other than
allowing him free reign? What does THAT teach him?
>I pass you over to His judgement.
Thank you. It's about time. Now kindly tend to your own business, and
don't bother trying to preach down to me. I don't tolerate that.
Jesus already IS my Savior, and there is nothing the likes of you can
do to change it.
Scout Lady
"Doc Watson" <docwatson@yup> wrote in message
>
>
> And daily I DO where old man weatherless is concerned.
> He's so ridiculous, it's BEYOND my feeling sorry for him.
> He's an ass ------- a pompous, ignorant, bullheaded, lying,
> antagonistic, argumentative, stubborn, miserable, arrogant ASS.
>
Consider how small a fire can set a huge forest ablaze. The tongue is also
a fire. It exists among our members as a world of malice, defiling the whole
body and setting the entire course of our lives on fire, itself set on fire
by Gehenna. For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature,
can be tamed and has been tamed by the human species, but no human being can
tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With it we
bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings who are made in
the likeness of God. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. This
need not be so, my brothers.
Dave
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 11:49:05 -0400, "Scout Lady"
> <scou...@nospam.net> wrote:
Snip
> elaine, you are indeed a legend in your own mind.
Pot, meet kettle.
Scout Lady
"Doc Watson" <docwatson@yup> wrote in message
<snipped the countless lies>
> So kindly don't talk down concerning me, especially behind my back,
> Vera. Say it to ME if you have a gripe.
>
The hypocrisy never ends! There is no one, and I do mean no one who
indirectly talks down to others more than you do Elaine. One need only look
at the numerous posts you make and they will discover that the greater
majority of your posts are nothing but ranting and raving about another
through a third party.
BTW, The fact that you were freely able to read what Vera posted in a public
newsgroup pretty much rules out that she was talking behind your back!
You need to go get some help asap. You have lost any sense of reality that
you might have once had.
::: vera :::
> "::: vera :::" <ver...@acc-growing-deeper.de> wrote in
> news:3md02gF...@individual.net:
>
>> John has a problem to
>> control himself, and it is a really severe thing to provoke him
>> all the time like she does. She should simply leave him in peace
>> if she cannot get along with him.
>>
> Excellent advice. Now if all those who think they are "spiritual"
> could simply take it instead of continually antagonizing him we would
> have a good start. Of course, that would require denying the
> monster.
John is no monster. Try to have a little more understanding - he can't
have it, but maybe you can.
By the way, everybody could get ill from one second to the next. Would
you like to be treated like a monster when you get a mental illness?
This would not be possible here in Germany, praise the Lord! We respect
handicapped people. What about you?
Dave
> Mike Andrade <m...@box.invalid> wrote:
> > "::: vera :::" <ver...@acc-growing-deeper.de> wrote in
> > news:3md02gF...@individual.net:
> >
> >> John has a problem to control himself, and it is a really
> >> severe thing to provoke him all the time like she does. She
> >> should simply leave him in peace if she cannot get along
> >> with him.
> >>
> > Excellent advice. Now if all those who think they are
> > "spiritual" could simply take it instead of continually
> > antagonizing him we would have a good start. Of course,
> > that would require denying the monster.
>
> John is no monster.
What was written was "denying the monster," which means something
different than *is* a monster.
> Try to have a little more understanding - he can't
> have it, but maybe you can.
You seem to be a tad naive. I'm too cynical. The truth probably lies
somewhere in between.
> By the way, everybody could get ill from one second to the
> next. Would you like to be treated like a monster when you
> get a mental illness?
The problem, of course, is in assuming that we are being told the
truth, which is not really something we can take for granted. And
having an illness does not grant someone carte blanche to use that
illness like a club, or an excuse to be an obnoxious boor.
> This would not be possible here in Germany, praise the Lord!
Right. Such things are not possible, have never been possible, and
will never be possible...in Germany. Right.
> We respect handicapped people.
You speak for all Germans, do you?
Mike Andrade
news:3mkundF...@individual.net:
> Mike Andrade <m...@box.invalid> wrote:
>> "::: vera :::" <ver...@acc-growing-deeper.de> wrote in
>> news:3md02gF...@individual.net:
>>
>>> John has a problem to
>>> control himself, and it is a really severe thing to provoke him
>>> all the time like she does. She should simply leave him in peace
>>> if she cannot get along with him.
>>>
>> Excellent advice. Now if all those who think they are
>> "spiritual" could simply take it instead of continually
>> antagonizing him we would have a good start. Of course, that
>> would require denying the monster.
>
> John is no monster. Try to have a little more understanding - he
> can't have it, but maybe you can.
>
> By the way, everybody could get ill from one second to the next.
> Would you like to be treated like a monster when you get a mental
> illness? This would not be possible here in Germany, praise the
> Lord! We respect handicapped people. What about you?
>
Whoosh!
--
Mike
:abbrev: /*-breev'/, /*-brev'/ n. Common abbreviation for
`abbreviation'.
- The AI Hackers Dictionary
::: vera :::
>>>> vera ::: wrote:
>> Mike Andrade <m...@box.invalid> wrote:
>>> "::: vera :::" <ver...@acc-growing-deeper.de> wrote in
>>> news:3md02gF...@individual.net:
>>>
>>>> John has a problem to control himself, and it is a really
>>>> severe thing to provoke him all the time like she does. She
>>>> should simply leave him in peace if she cannot get along
>>>> with him.
>>>>
>>> Excellent advice. Now if all those who think they are
>>> "spiritual" could simply take it instead of continually
>>> antagonizing him we would have a good start. Of course,
>>> that would require denying the monster.
>>
>> John is no monster.
>
> What was written was "denying the monster," which means something
> different than *is* a monster.
>
>> Try to have a little more understanding - he can't
>> have it, but maybe you can.
>
> You seem to be a tad naive. I'm too cynical. The truth probably lies
> somewhere in between.
Okay, maybe I took it too literal. So I apologise to Mike if this is the
case.
>> By the way, everybody could get ill from one second to the
>> next. Would you like to be treated like a monster when you
>> get a mental illness?
>
> The problem, of course, is in assuming that we are being told the
> truth, which is not really something we can take for granted. And
> having an illness does not grant someone carte blanche to use that
> illness like a club, or an excuse to be an obnoxious boor.
If the truth comes from God who is good, we can take it for granted, at
least this is what I am doing. This is what gets me going, thinking,
acting. This IS the truth, this IS reality.
>> This would not be possible here in Germany, praise the Lord!
>
> Right. Such things are not possible, have never been possible, and
> will never be possible...in Germany. Right.
I spoke of the present. Handicapped people are respected here. You are
speaking of the past which I have not even seen.
>> We respect handicapped people.
>
> You speak for all Germans, do you?
For those who I know, yes. My son's uncle is severely handicapped,
mentally and physically, and he is taken care of by many people, not
only Christians.
Dave
Snip
> > The problem, of course, is in assuming that we are
> > being told the truth, which is not really something
> > we can take for granted. And having an illness does
> > not grant someone carte blanche to use that
> > illness like a club, or an excuse to be an obnoxious
> > boor.
>
> If the truth comes from God...
Supposition...not fact.
> ...who is good, we can take it for granted, at least this
> is what I am doing.
Without good cause or evidence, I might add.
> This is what gets me going, thinking, acting. This IS
> the truth, this IS reality.
No, as long as there is no evidence and loads of contrary evidence, it
is nothing more than an adult fantasy.
> >> This would not be possible here in Germany, praise the
> >> Lord!
> >
> > Right. Such things are not possible, have never been
> > possible, and will never be possible...in Germany. Right.
>
> I spoke of the present. Handicapped people are respected here.
> You are speaking of the past which I have not even seen.
I "spoke" of the past, present, *and* future. Handicapped people are
respected here, too, in general. There will always be those that
don't, and Germany isn't special in that regard. There will always be
those that exploit a handicap to gain an advantage that they should
not. That's reality, too. And there are still more who aren't
handicapped, at all, or who inflate their handicap in order to gain
sympathy or make excuses. That's a reality, as well. No country on
Earth is free of those things.
> >> We respect handicapped people.
> >
> > You speak for all Germans, do you?
>
> For those who I know, yes.
Then your answer is "no," since you don't know all Germans, which is
what I asked.
> My son's uncle is severely handicapped, mentally and
> physically, and he is taken care of by many people, not
> only Christians.
"Many people" is not "all Germans." You do not speak for all Germans.
The answer, therefore, is "no." Thanks for playing.
larr...@adelphia.net
>::: vera ::: wrote:
>> Dave <hor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>> vera ::: wrote:
>
>Snip
>
>> > The problem, of course, is in assuming that we are
>> > being told the truth, which is not really something
>> > we can take for granted. And having an illness does
>> > not grant someone carte blanche to use that
>> > illness like a club, or an excuse to be an obnoxious
>> > boor.
>>
>> If the truth comes from God...
>
>Supposition...not fact.
>
>> ...who is good, we can take it for granted, at least this
>> is what I am doing.
>
>Without good cause or evidence, I might add.
>
>> This is what gets me going, thinking, acting. This IS
>> the truth, this IS reality.
>
>No, as long as there is no evidence and loads of contrary evidence, it
>is nothing more than an adult fantasy.
Dave,
You ask for evidence. Look out your window and you will see it.
I take it you are a non believer. I am sorry for you. I will pray for
you. But back to the evidence. Like I said, look out your window. Do
you really think the grass or the trees just appeared? Do you really
think that this universe just happened? If so, then why is earth the
only planet that has breathable oxygen, that man (or woman) can breath
without outside help? Just a happening I don't think so. Why are man
and woman different. Why is there no animal that is built exactly like
man. Just happened by chance? I don't think so. Why does the sun and
the moon rise in the east and set in the west? Why not the other way
around, or from the North or South. Just a happening? I don't think
so. Dave, if you really clear your mind, and just take a long look at
the things around you, you will see God. But only if you want to.
May God bless you and keep you,
Larry
Dave
> >> If the truth comes from God...
> >
> >Supposition...not fact.
> >
> >> ...who is good, we can take it for granted, at least
> >> this is what I am doing.
> >
> >Without good cause or evidence, I might add.
> >
> >> This is what gets me going, thinking, acting. This IS
> >> the truth, this IS reality.
> >
> >No, as long as there is no evidence and loads of contrary
> >evidence, it is nothing more than an adult fantasy.
>
> Dave,
> You ask for evidence. Look out your window and you will see
> it.
I see evidence for lots of things--just not the fundamentalist God.
> I take it you are a non believer. I am sorry for you.
Well, I guess I am sorry for you, being a believer in such an obvious
evolved myth. So much time and energy wasted for something that isn't
true.
> I will pray for you.
Knock yourself out, for all the good it will do either of us.
> But back to the evidence. Like I said, look out your window.
> Do you really think the grass or the trees just appeared?
"Just appeared?" No, but you do. God spoke them into existence,
right? What's your evidence for that?
> Do you really think that this universe just happened?
I don't know, but there's no evidence that the fundamentalist version
of God had anything to do with it.
> If so, then why is earth the only planet that has
> breathable oxygen...
How do you know *that*? I don't know that. Scientists don't know
that. The only planets we can even *guess* about are in the solar
system. Beyond that, we have no idea. How it is that *you* know?
> ...that man (or woman) can breath without outside help?
I can breathe without outside help. Can't you?
> Just a happening I don't think so.
Okay, you don't think so. That's hardly compelling. Ever hear of "the
argument from incredulity?"
Snip more of the same.
> Dave, if you really clear your mind, and just take a long look
> at the things around you, you will see God. But only if you
> want to.
The Mormons and other cults use this line of "reasoning." Assuming you
aren't a member of one of those groups, what makes you right and them
wrong?
larr...@adelphia.net
>larr...@adelphia.net wrote:
>> On 19 Aug 2005 10:46:54 -0700, "Dave" <hor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> If the truth comes from God...
>> >
>> >Supposition...not fact.
>> >
>> >> ...who is good, we can take it for granted, at least
>> >> this is what I am doing.
>> >
>> >Without good cause or evidence, I might add.
>> >
>> >> This is what gets me going, thinking, acting. This IS
>> >> the truth, this IS reality.
>> >
>> >No, as long as there is no evidence and loads of contrary
>> >evidence, it is nothing more than an adult fantasy.
>>
>> Dave,
>> You ask for evidence. Look out your window and you will see
>> it.
>
>I see evidence for lots of things--just not the fundamentalist God.
Then you are not looking with faith. But looking with your eyes.
>
>> I take it you are a non believer. I am sorry for you.
>
>Well, I guess I am sorry for you, being a believer in such an obvious
>evolved myth. So much time and energy wasted for something that isn't
>true.
In you opinion it is a myth. And that is your right to believe that.
But I believe different. No need to feel sorry for me. I am going to a
place when I leave this earth, that will have no pain, no more tears,
I will never thirst or be hungry.
>
>> I will pray for you.
>
>Knock yourself out, for all the good it will do either of us.
I will.
>
>> But back to the evidence. Like I said, look out your window.
>> Do you really think the grass or the trees just appeared?
>
>"Just appeared?" No, but you do. God spoke them into existence,
>right? What's your evidence for that?
See that is your problem. You are the type of person that must have
evidence or a sign. The difference between us, is I need no evidence.
I have faith.
>
>> Do you really think that this universe just happened?
>
>I don't know, but there's no evidence that the fundamentalist version
>of God had anything to do with it.
There is more evidence than you think. Even the scientists are
beginning to doubt their theories.
>
>> If so, then why is earth the only planet that has
>> breathable oxygen...
>
>How do you know *that*? I don't know that. Scientists don't know
>that. The only planets we can even *guess* about are in the solar
>system. Beyond that, we have no idea. How it is that *you* know?
Only planet in this universe. ( I should have stated that). Even
science will tell you that.
>
>> ...that man (or woman) can breath without outside help?
>
>I can breathe without outside help. Can't you?
On earth yes. On the other planets, nope. And neither could you
without help. (oxygen tank)
>
>> Just a happening I don't think so.
>
>Okay, you don't think so. That's hardly compelling. Ever hear of "the
>argument from incredulity?"
The problem is you don't believe. I have faith. Faith that the Bible
is the Word of God. And everything in it is true.
>
>Snip more of the same.
>
>> Dave, if you really clear your mind, and just take a long look
>> at the things around you, you will see God. But only if you
>> want to.
>
>The Mormons and other cults use this line of "reasoning." Assuming you
>aren't a member of one of those groups, what makes you right and them
>wrong?
They use something similar to it yes. But they are a lot different
than I am. Mormons do not believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
As for the other cults, they only take part of the Bible and apply it,
not all of it.
And on top of that. What makes me right and them wrong? I have the
Lord Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior.
Tom McDonald
<snip>
>>The Mormons and other cults use this line of "reasoning." Assuming you
>>aren't a member of one of those groups, what makes you right and them
>>wrong?
>
>
> They use something similar to it yes. But they are a lot different
> than I am. Mormons do not believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
> As for the other cults, they only take part of the Bible and apply it,
> not all of it.
So how do you apply the bits that tell you to kill disobedient
children, or any of the other things that, if done today, would
get you thrown in jail?
It's all well and good to say that you apply the whole bible;
but if you did, you would be hand-less, eye-less and in jail for
life. Are you?
>
> And on top of that. What makes me right and them wrong? I have the
> Lord Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior.
As do they all, Larry; as do they all. Your faith suffices for
you; your exclusivity does not suffice for others.
Why the need to compare yourself and your beliefs with others?
--
Tom McDonald
http://ahwhatdoiknow.blogspot.com/
Dave
Snip
> >I see evidence for lots of things--just not the
> >fundamentalist God.
>
> Then you are not looking with faith. But looking
> with your eyes.
I'm supposed to use something other than my God-given senses, as it
were? You seem to advocate a blind faith approach, which I rejected
even when I was a Christian.
> >> I take it you are a non believer. I am sorry for you.
> >
> >Well, I guess I am sorry for you, being a believer in such
> >an obvious evolved myth. So much time and energy wasted
> >for something that isn't true.
>
> In you opinion it is a myth.
I think I can back it up...with evidence or an examination of the lack
of evidence that makes "myth" a compelling argument.
> And that is your right to believe that.
I didn't ask. Please save the patronization and condescension for
someone else. You seem to be running a standard evangelical thread,
like a sales pitch, and it won't work.
> But I believe different. No need to feel sorry for me.
You feel arrogant enough to feel sorry for me, but put off when I feel
sorry for you? See how much this Christian thing is merely an
extension of your ego. You feel sorry for those whom you view as "not
saved," but they can't be sorry for you. I feel sorry for anyone who
wastes time, effort, money, and what little time we get on this planet
to a failed idea.
> I am going to a place when I leave this earth, that will
> have no pain, no more tears, I will never thirst or be
> hungry.
Wishful thinking. Odds are that that's not the way things happen, but
you fervently hope it does. It's your way of finding your place in the
Universe.
> >> I will pray for you.
> >
> >Knock yourself out, for all the good it will do either
> >of us.
>
> I will.
Like I said...
> >> But back to the evidence. Like I said, look out your
> >> window. Do you really think the grass or the trees
> >> just appeared?
> >
> >"Just appeared?" No, but you do. God spoke them into
> >existence, right? What's your evidence for that?
>
> See that is your problem.
No, that is not my problem. I didn't say that trees "just appeared,"
you did. You assumed that would be an argument of mine, and it is not.
> You are the type of person that must have evidence or
> a sign.
Given the usual Christian understanding of "a sign," I'd say that I'd
need more than that. We get "signs" all of the time.
> The difference between us, is I need no evidence.
> I have faith.
Blind faith. No evidence. Right?
> >> Do you really think that this universe just happened?
> >
> >I don't know, but there's no evidence that the fundamentalist
> >version of God had anything to do with it.
>
> There is more evidence than you think.
Well, present it.
> Even the scientists are beginning to doubt their theories.
Are they, really? What are their names? Where are they publishing in
the journals? What, exactly, are they beginning to doubt and to which
theories do you refer?
> >> If so, then why is earth the only planet that has
> >> breathable oxygen...
> >
> >How do you know *that*? I don't know that. Scientists
> >don't know that. The only planets we can even *guess*
> >about are in the solar system. Beyond that, we have no
> >idea. How it is that *you* know?
>
> Only planet in this universe. ( I should have stated that). Even
> science will tell you that.
Science won't tell you that, because science doesn't know. It's the
only *known* planet with an oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere capable of
supporting life *as we know it*. But our knowledge is extremely
limited and it's a big universe. So I have the same questions, and
they didn't get answered. I fully understood that you were referring
to the Universe. I pointed out that we only know about the planets in
this solar system, and even some of that knowledge will almost
certainly turn out to be faulty. Telling me that you should have said
"universe" in the first place changes nothing.
> >> ...that man (or woman) can breath without outside
> >> help?
> >
> >I can breathe without outside help. Can't you?
>
> On earth yes. On the other planets, nope. And neither
> could you without help. (oxygen tank)
First of all, you should have said that. Second, how is this evidence
of anything having to do with a God of any sort, let alone God as
viewed by fundamentalist Christians?
> >> Just a happening I don't think so.
> >
> >Okay, you don't think so. That's hardly compelling. Ever
> >hear of "the argument from incredulity?"
>
> The problem is you don't believe.
I don't see that as a problem. For one thing, so much of
fundamentalism is desmonstrably false.
> I have faith. Faith that the Bible is the Word of God. And
> everything in it is true.
So...even though this all started as your response to my pointing out a
lack of evidence, and even though you started out by trying to claim
that there is evidence, all you have is faith and no evidence. Is that
it?
> >Snip more of the same.
> >
> >> Dave, if you really clear your mind, and just take a long
> >> look at the things around you, you will see God. But only
> >> if you want to.
> >
> >The Mormons and other cults use this line of "reasoning."
> >Assuming you aren't a member of one of those groups, what
> >makes you right and them wrong?
>
> They use something similar to it yes. But they are a lot
> different than I am. Mormons do not believe in Jesus Christ
> as Lord and Savior.
I think that's news to a lot of Mormons.
> As for the other cults, they only take part of the Bible and
> apply it, not all of it.
My experience is that the so-called "cultists" read their Bibles more
often and tend to know them better than fundamentalist Christians.
> And on top of that. What makes me right and them wrong? I
> have the Lord Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior.
They say the same thing, so the question hasn't been answered.
walks...@dirty.dastardly.deeds.done.dirt.cheap.llc
at 11:49 PM, larr...@adelphia.net said:
A moment Dave, Larry, if I might.
>On 19 Aug 2005 15:58:03 -0700, "Dave" <hor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>larr...@adelphia.net wrote:
>>> On 19 Aug 2005 10:46:54 -0700, "Dave" <hor...@gmail.com> wrote:
Snip
>>> >No, as long as there is no evidence and loads of contrary
>>> >evidence, it is nothing more than an adult fantasy.
>>>
>>> Dave,
>>> You ask for evidence. Look out your window and you will see
>>> it.
>>
>>I see evidence for lots of things--just not the fundamentalist God.
>Then you are not looking with faith. But looking with your eyes.
That is yolur problem Larry, you presume because it works for you, it
works for everyone. I can tell you that this is not true & never has been.
You se, by making that assertion, you are quite well telling every other
person that believes in a different myth thay are wrong. You, nor I, do
not know that. We can tally up the presentations & make a concious
decision, that is all we can do. & that decision is binding on one person,
the one that made it. No one else.
>>> I take it you are a non believer. I am sorry for you.
That is arrogant Larry, & one of the things that turns many people away
from your myth, the arrogance to assume that you are right & they are
wrong automatically is human, but not the way to convince anyone you have
anything to say.
>>Well, I guess I am sorry for you, being a believer in such an obvious
>>evolved myth. So much time and energy wasted for something that isn't
>>true.
Two way street, but remember Larry, you brought up the pity routine first.
>In you opinion it is a myth. And that is your right to believe that. But
In the opinion of the majority of the world when you get right down to it.
>I believe different. No need to feel sorry for me. I am going to a place
But there is, you see, whether you accept the fact or not you are in a
guessing game. One that appeals to your needs, fear & greed [as do all
mythologies]
>when I leave this earth, that will have no pain, no more tears, I will
Part of the appeal, but did you know there are afterlives claimed that
make the revealed gods of the desert seem not worth the effort. There are
afterlives that have angels singing yo you 24/7/eternity, & only what you
want to hear. You will never hunger nor thirst, & a buddha will strew
Lotus petals from the heavens. No pain, no grief, eternal complacency.
Sounds good, but I can't sign up for it myself. then there is an afterlife
where even people like jw will be, but they won't be allowed to mix with
the good people. There are afterlives that are dismal, & some pretty darn
enticing. They all require the same thing, a greed or a life better than
this one, which we know we ave, versus a life that may not be as promised.
The Sumerians may have had the right of it, but i hope not..
>never thirst or be hungry.
See the above, that claimed benefit is not unique to the myths from the
revealed gods of the desert.
>>> I will pray for you.
>>Knock yourself out, for all the good it will do either of us.
>I will.
& I suppose it will be all right if others think for you then? It is not
less arrogant that your praying for those that have no wish for you to
waste your time in such un-productive efforts.
>>> But back to the evidence. Like I said, look out your window.
you really think the grass or the trees just appeared?
>>
>>"Just appeared?" No, but you do. God spoke them into existence,
>>right? What's your evidence for that?
>See that is your problem. You are the type of person that must have
Actually it is your problem, you just have never been shown that, I am not
even sure you can be. You see, you make a claim based on assumptions
generated by someone who said that what someone else said was true even
though the never knew the other person, & that goes back to the
beginninging of your myth. It is true of other myths as well, but yours is
the topic here. You see, if you want others to believe you, you ned to
leave that protected species attitude & roll your sleeves up & get with
it. Your pretensions to knowledge you can not have are meaningless outside
your myth.
>evidence or a sign. The difference between us, is I need no evidence. I
>have faith.
Yes, the silver bullet. & really that says it all. You do not need to know
you are right or wrong, you have faith that you are right. Never ind that
your gods get lost in the god pool of over 25000 entrants, & never mind
your myth shows the same evolution as other long term myths, you have
faith. Sadly, that says it all.
>>> Do you really think that this universe just happened?
>>I don't know, but there's no evidence that the fundamentalist version
>>of God had anything to do with it.
>There is more evidence than you think. Even the scientists are beginning
>to doubt their theories.
Science is based on doubt Larry, one of those doubts is there is one
theory that will fit what we see at all times. One of the criteria of a
scientific theory is there must be a scenario where the theory does not
work Unlike the xian & common usage of the word, it has requirements that
must be meet, & that is one of them.
>>> If so, then why is earth the only planet that has
>>> breathable oxygen...
>>How do you know *that*? I don't know that. Scientists don't know
>>that. The only planets we can even *guess* about are in the solar
>>system. Beyond that, we have no idea. How it is that *you* know?
>Only planet in this universe. ( I should have stated that). Even science
>will tell you that.
No Larry, you do not know that either. The universe is just to large for
you to know that, that would require this solar system to be the only one
with planets, & the odds say no if nothing else. Even seen a picture of a
sun being born, breathtaking, & Ra, Sol, not any other diety required.
Gravity, yes, gods, no. & it happens with regularity, we just don't get to
see them so often that some of us will lose the wonder & awe the event
inspires.
>>> ...that man (or woman) can breath without outside help?
>>I can breathe without outside help. Can't you?
>On earth yes. On the other planets, nope. And neither could you without
>help. (oxygen tank)
Again, that is only true, insofar as we know, in this solar system, a
rather insignificant solar sytem that universally speaking, has nothing to
offer.
>>> Just a happening I don't think so.
>>Okay, you don't think so. That's hardly compelling. Ever hear of "the
>>argument from incredulity?"
>The problem is you don't believe. I have faith. Faith that the Bible is
>the Word of God. And everything in it is true.
Its worse than that Larry, your myth, along with every other myth that
promises an afterlife, is based on universal fallacies. Without the appeal
to these fallacies, there is nothing for a person that considers what they
are being told to hang a hat on.
>>Snip more of the same.
>>
>>> Dave, if you really clear your mind, and just take a long look
>>> at the things around you, you will see God. But only if you
>>> want to.
>>
>>The Mormons and other cults use this line of "reasoning." Assuming you
>>aren't a member of one of those groups, what makes you right and them
>>wrong?
>They use something similar to it yes. But they are a lot different than I
>am. Mormons do not believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. As for the
>other cults, they only take part of the Bible and apply it, not all of
>it.
All cults make the same basic claim, look around you. Yet there are gods
that do not care if you beleive in them or not, & the grimorie reads fine
as a social commentary/semi-history. As the word of gods, it fails on
several fronts. But don't worry, you have faith. It does not remove the
problem for others, just those that, like you, fail to use their brain for
any other major purpose than keeping their ears apart. That statement can
be laid at the feet of any myth that requires faith as a cornerstone.
>And on top of that. What makes me right and them wrong? I have the Lord
>Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior.
No, you don't. You believe that, that is where the faith comes in. You can
not even indicate why historically your claim makes sense, let alone why
your myth's claim of the missing lad is a messiah in spite of the colossal
failure to do what a messiah is required to do, the first time. Add to
that, you follow the teachings of Saul, who is also missing historically,
& Houston, you have a problem, & when you get right down to it, it is
because all you have is faith.
A suggestion Larry, before you consider trying to tell non-believers they
are wrong, try to find out why you are not wrong by believeing in Hon, or
Attis, or Gia, or any other claimed god. Until that can be done, you don't
even have the privilege of claiming to know you are right, for you have
not examined the question beyond the scum on top of the pond. & yes, the
study indicates the gods can be called scum as we know the term.
walksalone who has no problem with what Larry believes, but does have a
problem with why Larry believes as he does, without foundation or
knowledge. Still, it is Larry's right, so far, to believe as he will &
that I will defend.
--
"Life is hard? True -- but let's love it anyhow, though it breaks every bone in our bodies."
Edward Abbey
Doc Watson
walks...@dirty.dastardly.deeds.done.dirt.cheap.llc said the
following funny stuff in this here little old new 'froup:
:Larry said:
>
>>>> I take it you are a non believer. I am sorry for you.
>
>That is arrogant Larry, & one of the things that turns many people away
>from your myth, the arrogance to assume that you are right & they are
>wrong automatically is human, but not the way to convince anyone you have
>anything to say.
Walksalone, I must say that what you said is VERY TRUE..... up to the
word 'myth'.
The LORD is not imaginary, but to Christians, HE IS REAL.
I agree with you in regards to what Christians versus non-believers.
Sometimes 'Christians' come on so strongly, it only serves to drive
people away from even WANTING to know the Lord, let alone seek a
personal relationship with Him.
All I can and will say at this juncture is that for ME, the Lord IS
very real. He has been with me in good times and in bad, and in
sickness, as well as recovery, to say nothing of good health
otherwise.
He has been with me when I was down, and supporting me.....
He has been with me when I was feeling good about things, and
re-affirming my joy.
He has been with me in adverse circumstances, such as the death of
both of my parents, supporting, uplifting, and encouraging me to go
on.
Yes, Walksalone, GOD IS REAL.
And daily to me, HE reaffirms my belief by His divine presence,
regardless of what some say in here.
I sure wish you would reconsider.
But I will NOT try forcing anything upon you, because I DO KNOW that
DOES indeed turn people right off.
Despite YOUR unbelief, please do not be insulted in any way by my
saying "GOD BLESS YOU".
Doc :o)